Upload
phungtuong
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Los Angeles Department of City Planning RECOMMENDATION REPORT
PROJECT: Historic-Cultural Monument Application for the
LEE RESIDENCE REQUEST: Declare the property a Historic-Cultural Monument OWNER: CMB Developers, Inc. Attn: Ilanit Maghen 1080 Everett Place Los Angeles, CA 90026-4413 APPLICANT: Highland Park Heritage Trust P.O. Box 50894 Highland Park, CA 90004 PREPARERS: Charles J. Fisher and Jonathan Silberman Highland Park Heritage Trust 140 S. Avenue 57 Highland Park, CA 90042
RECOMMENDATION That the Cultural Heritage Commission:
1. Take the property under consideration as a Historic-Cultural Monument per Los Angeles Administrative Code Chapter 9, Division 22, Article 1, Section 22.171.10 because the application and accompanying photo documentation suggest the submittal warrants further investigation.
2. Adopt the report findings.
VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP Director of PlanningN1907 [SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE] [SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE] Ken Bernstein, AICP, Manager Lambert M. Giessinger, Preservation Architect Office of Historic Resources Office of Historic Resources [SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE] Melissa Jones, Planning Assistant Office of Historic Resources Attachments: Historic-Cultural Monument Application
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION HEARING DATE: October 20, 2016 TIME: 10:00 AM PLACE: City Hall, Room 1010 200 N. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012
CASE NO.: CHC-2016-3731-HCM ENV-2016-3732-CE Location: 6111 North Monterey Road; 6112 North Toltec Way; 6117 North Monterey Road Council District: 14 Community Plan Area: Northeast Los Angeles Area Planning Commission: East Los Angeles Neighborhood Council: Arroyo Seco Legal Description: Oak Hill Park Tract, Block 2, Lots 28-29
CHC-2016-3731-HCM 6111 North Monterey Road; 6112 North Toltec Way; 6117 North Monterey Road Page 2 of 2 SUMMARY The 1938 Lee Residence is a two-story, East Asian Eclectic single-family dwelling with a detached two car garage located at 6111 North Monterey Road between Hardison Way and South Avenue 60 in the Hermon Community. It was constructed by Foss Construction Company for Edgar K. Lee and his family. Edgar Lee (originally Coon Lin Lee) was born in China in 1896 and immigrated to the United States in 1912. Shortly after, in 1917, Lee married an American woman, Alice Stuart, with whom he raised three children.
East Asian Eclectic architecture, a derivative and referential style that borrowed forms and ornament directly from ancient buildings in East Asia, emerged as part of the larger Exotic Revival trend in Los Angeles in the 1920s and proliferated on a large (if geographically isolated) scale with the construction of Los Angeles’ New Chinatown in 1938. East Asian communities continued to use the style to define neighborhoods with ethnic associations.
The Lee Residence retains many of its original features including multi-lite bay and steel casement windows, decorative half-timbering, a rounded, recessed entryway, decorative terracotta grilles, carved rafter tails, a clay tile roof, and sloped roof corners. Square in plan, the dwelling is clad in textured stucco and has a hipped roof with a distinctive decorative detail at its peak. On the rear façade, there is a one-story enclosed living space with a roof deck.
The exterior of the house is mostly intact. The limited alterations include the construction of an addition along the south façade, a pool built in 1980, and recent partial removal of the roof.
The Lee Residence was identified in the draft findings of the citywide historic resources survey, SurveyLA, as eligible for designation at the state and local levels as an excellent example of East Asian Eclectic architecture. CRITERIA The criterion is the Cultural Heritage Ordinance which defines a historical or cultural monument as any site (including significant trees or other plant life located thereon) building or structure of particular historic or cultural significance to the City of Los Angeles, such as historic structures or sites in which the broad cultural, economic, or social history of the nation, State or community is reflected or exemplified, or which are identified with historic personages or with important events in the main currents of national, State or local history or which embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period style or method of construction, or a notable work of a master builder, designer or architect whose individual genius influenced his age. FINDINGS Based on the facts set forth in the summary and application, the Commission determines that the application is complete and that the property may be significant enough to warrant further investigation as a potential Historic-Cultural Monument.
1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Proposed Monument Name:
Street Address: Zip: Council District:
Range of Addresses on Property: Community Name:
Assessor Parcel Number: Tract: Block: Lot:
Proposed Monument Property Type: Building Structure Object
Site/Open Space
NaturalFeature
2. CONSTRUCTION HISTORY & CONDITION
Year Built: Factual Estimated Threatened?:
Architect/Designer: Contractor:
Original Use: Present Use:
Is the Proposed Monument on its Original Site?: Yes No Unknown
4. HISTORIC-CULTURAL MONUMENT CRITERIA
The proposed monument exemplifies the following Cultural Heritage Ordinance Criteria (Section 22.171.7):
Reflects the broad cultural, economic, or social history of the nation, state or community
Is identified with historic personage(s) or with important events in the main currents of national, state, or local history
Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural-type specimen, inherently valuable for study of a period, style or method of construction
CITY OF LOS ANGELESOffice of Historic Resources/Cultural Heritage Commission
HISTORIC-CULTURAL MONUMENTNOMINATION FORM
A notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius influenced his or her age
If "No," where?:
3. STYLE & MATERIALS
Plan Shape: Architectural Style: Stories:tories:
Type:
Cladding Material:
ROOF Material:
WINDOWS Type:
Material:
ENTRY Style:
Material:
Type:
CONSTRUCTIONType:
Cladding Material:
Material:
Type:
Material:
Style:
Material:
Type:
PRIMARY SECONDARYFEATURE
1 UPDATED MARCH 20141 UPDATED MARCH 2014
!. "#$%&"$'()*+,--"&.
!"#$%!"#$%&'(%)*"$+%&%%&'$()!$*+&',#'-.%,-%),*.%(,'+%-,*%/&0,*%&1$+*&$",'#!%23"#%#+4$",'%/&5%&1#,%6+%4,/71+$+(%,'%&%
#+7&*&$+%(,48/+'$9%%:+%#8*+%$,%"'418(+%4,7"+#%,-%68"1("';%7+*/"$#%"'%$3+%',/"'&$",'%7&4.+$%<#++%!"#$%&'()*(=>:?@22A!B9"
C9%
D9%
E9%
F9%
G9%
H9%
I9%
J9%
/0 %1'+$')2*3'+$(&'4*&%+(,&4%*'5%)$'6'4"$'()*<@-%!',)'B
!"#$+(%"'%$3+%K&$",'&1%L+;"#$+*%,-%M"#$,*"4%N1&4+#%
!"#$+(%"'%$3+%O&1"-,*'"&%L+;"#$+*%,-%M"#$,*"4&1%L+#,8*4+#%
P,*/&115%(+$+*/"'+(%+1";"61+%-,*%$3+%K&$",'&1%&'("#$%O&1"-,*'"&%L+;"#$+*#%
!,4&$+(%"'%&%M"#$,*"4%N*+#+*Q&$",'%RQ+*1&5%S,'+%<MNRSB%!"#$%&'($&#)*+,-$(%,*
."#/0"#$%&'($&#)*+,-$(%,"
T+$+*/"'+(%+1";"61+%-,*%'&$",'&1U%#$&$+U%,*%1,4&1%1&'(/&*.%
#$&$8#%65%&%3"#$,*"4%*+#,8*4+#%#8*Q+5<#B%Survey Name(s):
R$3+*%3"#$,*"4%&'#$'481$8*&1%*+#,8*4+%(+#";'&$",'<#BV%
70 8&'$$%)*+$"$%-%)$+
#$%&"&'()%*+",--*.&"/*0")*"!"#$%##&'(&)*+,(-")$'"&%1+%2%(,+('"*2")$'"34*3*&'5"6*+06'+)",+5".$/"%)"&$*0-5"7'"+*6%+,)'5"
,&","8%&)*4%(9:0-)04,-";*+06'+)!""#/3'"/*04"4'&3*+&'&"*+","&'3,4,)'"5*(06'+)",+5",)),($"&$'')&")*")$'"7,(<"*2")$%&"
2*46!"
"0% 9:;<;=>?*-;@AB>@C*5>=D:E<CE;@*F*T+#4*"6+%$3+%7*,7,#+(%/,'8/+'$W#%735#"4&1%43&*&4$+*"#$"4#%&'(
*+1&$",'#3"7%$,%"$#%#8**,8'("';%+'Q"*,'/+'$9%%@(+'$"-5%&'(%(+#4*"6+%&'5%43&*&4$+*X(+-"'"';%+1+/+'$#U%
#$*84$8*+#U%"'$+*",*%#7&4+#U%,*%1&'(#4&7+%-+&$8*+#9
G0% +CHC>B>@C*;I*+EJ@EIEDH@D>*F*A((*+##%$3+%7*,7,#+(%/,'8/+'$W#%3"#$,*"4U%481$8*&1U%&'(Y,*%&*43"$+4$8*&1
#";'"-"4&'4+%65%("#48##"';%3,)%"$%#&$"#-"+#%$3+%MO?%4*"$+*"&%#+1+4$+(%"'%=+4$",'%F'(#)'*+,'-$,./#01'-%2,39%%
Z,8%/8#$%#877,*$%5,8*%&*;8/+'$%)"$3%#86#$&'$"&&'+Q"(+'4+!"#$!"#"%&'('9
!"#$%&'%(&)%*+,-(-)
&../01%2.%3/4526/0%7142860149!8:586;:%316/5;<1%!2==/44/2>
M@=2RL@OXO>!2>LA!%?RK>?[K2+&?"+*#"&+%'&7?
2 UPDATED MARCH 20142 UPDATED MARCH 2014
1980 Swimming pool constructed at rear of property.
Survey LA (per ARG)✔
!" !"#"$%"
!" #$%&'()*+,*" -.#-"#))"+'$/0*&-1" 1/203--*+"(3))"2*$'0*"4/2)3$" 5*$'5+1"/&+*5" -.*"6#)37'5&3#"8/2)3$"9*$'5+1":$-;"
#&+"/&+*51-#&+"-.#-"-.*"+'$/0*&-1"!"##$2*"0#+*"#<#3)#2)*"/4'&"5*=/*1-"-'"0*02*51"'7"-.*"4/2)3$"7'5"3&14*$-3'&"
#&+"$'4>3&,?
!" !"#$%!$&'#(")*%$'"#
!"#$%! &'#(")*%+
!"#$$"%&''#$(()% *+",)% !"-"$:
.+/: 0123$%4567$#)% 86-+9)%
./01*/(2&34+*/&
4-6$: *26/-3,)%
!"#$$"%&''#$(()% *+",)% !"-"$)%
.+/)% 0123$%4567$#)%
506"+'("0+&./*1'/*/7811)"$'+(9#&:*1/*#*+('(";*&
4-6$)! *26/-3,)%
!"#$$"%&''#$(()% *+",)% !"-"$)%
.+/)% 0123$%4567$#)%
86-+9)%
86-+9)%
!"#$%&'%(&)%*+,-(-)
&../01%2.%3/4526/0%7142860149!8:586;:%316/5;<1%!2==/44/2>
,-./01-&2&34/3154+60!367!/+&?"+*#"&+%'&7?
3 UPDATED MARCH 2014
!"#$%&#'()&*#+)#",--'*$#'.#$%&#)'/+)0$+')1 !"#$% !"#"$%"
811)"$'+(
!"#$%&'()*+,*"-.#-"#))"4.'-',5#4.1"#&+"30#,*1"1/203--*+"#1"4#5-"'7"-.31"#44)3$#-3'&"(3))"2*$'0*"-.*"45'4*5->"'7"
-.*"63->"'7"@'1":&,*)*1;"#&+"/&+*51-#&+"-.#-"4*503113'&"31",5#&-*+"7'5"/1*"'7"-.*"4.'-',5#4.1"#&+"30#,*1"2>"-.*"
63->"(3-.'/-"#&>"*A4*$-#-3'&"'7"$'04*&1#-3'&?
!"#$%&'()*+,*"-.#-"!".#<*"-.*"53,.-"-'"1/203-"'5".#<*"!"#$%&'("-.*"#445'453#-*"4*503113'&"-'"1/203-"#))"
3&7'50#-3'&"$'&-#3&*+"3&"-.31"#44)3$#-3'&?
B3,&#-/5*CD#0*C E#-*C
3 UPDATED MARCH 2014
!"#$%#&'#$(&#$)*&%+$+#,#-+&$-(&)*#).&+*#&)/''#%0/-(1-2&3/4#%&+/&1-(1)$+#&+*$+&5/6&$2'##&71+*&+*#&%+$+#,#-+8&
9*#-:&#"#)+'/-1)$""5&/'&0*5%1)$""5&%12-&+*#&3/++/,&0/'+1/-8&;1+*#'&+*#&$00"1)$-+&!"#+*#&0'#0$'#'&,$5&%12-8"
Highland Park Heritage Trust
P. O. Box 50894 Highland Park CA
90004 213-807-4127 [email protected]
CHB Developers, Inc, Attn: Ilanit Maghen
1080 Everett Place Los Angeles CA
90026-4413 323-807-3888 / 626-354-3283
Charles J. Fisher and Jonathan Silberman Highland Park Heritage Trust
140 S. Avenue 57 Highland Park CA
90042 323-256-3593 [email protected]
✔
✔
✔
Charles J.
Fisher
Digitally signed by Charles J. Fisher
DN: cn=Charles J. Fisher, o, ou,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2014.06.06 11:09:19 -07'00'Charles J. Fisher 09-27-16
&'" #$%&'(()*
:1$3%,25%1-;$%<26/9$"$'%/#$/-#+3=%,25#%326+3-"+23>%<26/+9$%-99%6-"$#+-9(%+3%"1$%2#'$#%(/$<+?+$'%7$92@A%%&9"125=1%"1$%$3"+#$
/-<B$"%65("%32"%$C<$$'%DEE%/-=$(>%,25%6-,%($3'%-''+"+23-9%6-"$#+-9%23%-%*F%2#%?9-(1%'#+;$A
"#$%!!"#$!%&'"()&*+,-."-)/.!0(1-2$1"!3-42&""/.!&'!&()!*++$,)!'+!
-$.&'/$,!0).'1/,).!'/!)2#$%!345!&'!%#26)/&78$)..$98)/:%#,$&;7'/8!
G??+<$%2?%H+("2#+<%I$(25#<$!%
F$/-#"6$3"%2?%*+",%09-33+3=%
JEE%4A%!/#+3=%!"#$$">%I226%KJE%
L2(%&3=$9$(>%*&%MEEDJ%
0123$)%JDNAMOPADJEE%
:$7(+"$)%/#$($#;-"+23A9-<+",A2#=%
&00LQ*&RQG4%*H8*SLQ!R%
DA 426+3-"+23%T2#6
JA :#+""$3%!"-"$6$3"(%&%-3'%U
NA U+79+2=#-/1,
VA R@2%0#+6-#,%012"2(%2?%8C"$#+2#WX-+3%T-Y-'$
ZA *2/+$(%2?%0#+6-#,W!$<23'-#,%F2<56$3"(
PA
MA
*2/+$(%2?%U5+9'+3=%0$#6+"(%?2#%X-[2#%&9"$#-"+23(%
\+3<95'$%?+#("%<23("#5<"+23%/$#6+"]%
*23"$6/2#-#,%012"2(
H+("2#+<-9%012"2(
.QX&!%0-#<$9%I$/2#"
KA%
OA
!"#$%&'%(&)%*+,-(-)
&../01%2.%3/4526/0%7142860149!8:586;:%316/5;<1%!2==/44/2>
,-./01-&2&34/3154+60!367!/+&?"+*#"&+%'&7?
4 UPDATED MARCH 2014
✔ ✔
✔
✔ ✔
✔ ✔
✔ ✔
6111 Monterey Road
Architectural Description
This 2-story home and detached garage are sited on a large and wide lot, with the
house set on the far left and the garage behind the house on the far right of the lot,
about � back of the lot’s total depth, with a long driveway accessibility from the front.
There are front and rear yards. The home is square in shape, and is arraigned with a
symmetrical second story of matching casement windows, decorative terracotta grilles
in foundation, which are repeated at the top of the porch and wood trim, and an
asymmetrical first story that features a right side covered entry and a left side bay
window. The rear portion includes enclosed living space on the first floor with an open
deck at the second floor. The hipped, pyramidal clay tile roof features a distinctive
ornamental detail at its peak, (roof was recently partially removed after the sale of the
property to the current owner, but a majority of it still survives today.) The house
features a Chinese aesthetic influence, which is an unusual and unique example in the
area. The garage is a boxy utilitarian structure… Both buildings are clad in textured
stucco, with the house featuring wide vertical wood siding on the upper front portion. A
single story wing is to the left rear of the house with a shed composition roof and a small
rear wing as well. The original building permit indicates that the wings may date from
the original construction.
Architectural details include multi-light steel casement windows, Decorative roof eaves,
sloped roof corners, and exterior trim details including half timbering and terracotta
grilles in the foundation, accentuate the Chinese architectural influence. Other
terracotta grilles frame the front entry and appears on brickwork at the home’s lower
portion, beneath the front Regency style window bay. A matching bay window appears
on the right side of the home. An original brick chimney on the home’s left side rises
above the roofline. A small octagonal stained glass window stands at the front center
on the front first story, between the bay window and the arched entry.
A number of mature trees and hedges are present in the front yard, as well as at the
rear portion of the lot close to the Toltec Way alleyway. A decorative wrought iron fence
is along the front of the property.
6111 Monterey Road
Significance Statement
Built in 1938 by Edgar K Lee, for his wife Alice Lee and their family, this two story home
and detached garage on a large lot serves as unique example of Chinese Style
Architecture with an American Foursquare massing, and bears historical significance as
a home built for one of the early settlers of the Hermon community, as well as a
connection to early Chinese immigration to California and development of a Chinese
American population in Los Angeles.
Edgar K Lee (originally Coon Lin Lee) was born in China on October 14, 1896, the son
of an American-born Chinese Father and Chinese Mother. He came to the United
States in 1912 and in roughly 1917 married an American woman, Alice Stuart. Alice
had been born in Yutan, Nebraska on July 27, 1891. Her family moved to Corning City,
New York before relocating to California. The marriage between them was not allowed
under United States law at that time. It is possible that it occurred in another country
that allowed the union or, more likely, it was based on a contract drafted by an attorney,
much in the manner that Fong See and Letticie "Ticie" Pruitt, a native of Oregon did in
Sacramento on January 15, 1897, as documented in their Great Granddaughter, Lisa
See's 1995 book, "On Gold Mountain".
Chinese immigrants in the 19th Century were probably the most reviled of all
newcomers to the United States. Immigration from China first became heavy during the
California Gold Rush which drew many Chinese to "Gold Mountain", as California
became known in China. They were later recruited for the building of the
transcontinental railroad beginning in the late 1860s. They were overwhelmingly male
and were used as laborers, performing the grueling task of clearing the land and laying
the tracks from San Francisco up into the Rockies. The Eastern portion was built by
Irish immigrants, possibly the second most reviled group of the time due to anti-Catholic
bias that existed. They however were to merge into society much easier than their
Chinese counterparts.
There were very few Chinese women brought in and many of them were relegated to be
prostitutes to appease the desires of the men who were so far from their homes and
families. It is possible that Edgar Lee's father was born from one of these liaisons. The
immigrants were denied the ability to become United States citizens and were
"encouraged" to return to China when their usefulness for the railroads had ended.
Lee's father most probably went back to China when his mother was deported.
However, due to his being born in California, he was a United States citizen from the
time of his birth. This fact was to lead to issues later for Lee when he was viewed as an
immigrant but also as a United States citizen in various documents, due to his father's
birthplace. However, at the time of his entry in 1912, only the fact that he was a citizen
allowed him to even enter the country.
The immigration from China brought out the worst in bigotry with fear of the "yellow
peril" bringing about acts of Congress to suppress it. The most notorious was the
Chinese Exclusion Act that was signed into law by President Chester Alan Arthur on
May 6, 1882 that was intended to prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers into the
United States. The act was supposed to end in a decade, but it was renewed in 1892
and again in 1902, when it was made permanent. It was the first time that the United
States implemented a law that was specifically intended to keep a particular ethic group
from immigrating.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, during a time
when China had become an ally of the U.S. against Japan in World War II. This repeal
also occurred in the context of World War II, during which the U.S. fought against
German Nazism and needed to embody an image of fairness and justice, and also
during a time when the Japanese had become the enemy and China was a critical ally.
The Magnuson Act permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to
become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. While the
Magnuson Act overturned the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act, it only allowed a
national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year, and did not repeal the restrictions
on immigration from the other Asian countries. Large scale Chinese immigration did not
occur until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The crackdown
on Chinese immigrants reached a new level in its last decade, from 1956–1965, with the
Chinese Confession Program launched by the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
that encouraged Chinese who had committed immigration fraud to confess, so as to be
eligible for some leniency in treatment.
Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California
prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites was not repealed until 1948, in which the
California Supreme Court ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state
unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp. Other states had such laws until 1967, when the
United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-
miscegenation laws across the nation are unconstitutional.
Alice Lee (formerly Alice Stuart) was the daughter of Reverend William E. Stuart and
Ella C. Stuart. Along with her sisters Mary and Wilma, the Stuarts were among the
early settlers in Hermon in 1903. Rev Stuart was the pastor of the Hermon Free
Methodist Church, from which the congregation established the Hermon Community.
The Los Angeles Free Methodist Seminary was established in 1904. The school later
became Los Angeles Pacific College, with the college eventually merging with Azusa
College and moving to the Azusa Pacific University campus in 1965. The campus was
taken over by Pacific Christian High School, which was also Methodist. The school
closed in the summer 2004 just before celebrating its 100th anniversary, as the board of
the school simply had no money to continue operating. While the school grounds
remained shuttered, the school board and the Hermon community discussed the future
of the school and its properties. The Hermon Church retained the right of first-refusal.
When a developer attempted to buy the property to build housing, the school board and
the church prepared to enter the courts to settle the matter. However, an appropriate
buyer, agreeable to both sides appeared and on December 7, 2006, the school board
agreed to the sale of the 7-acre site to Bethesda Christian University.
After the sale to Bethesda was completed, the new owners signed a multi-year lease of
the historic campus to Los Angeles International Charter High School (LAICHS),
beginning with the 2007-08 academic year. LAICHS operates as public secondary
school under the umbrella of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. In 2009,
LAICHS graduated its first senior class of approximately 40 students. Current
enrollment as of 2014 averages 250 students in grades 9 through 12; future plans call
for addition of grades 7 and 8.
The Stuart sisters attended Bushnell Way Elementary and Mary and Wilma attended LA
Seminary (now the site of LA International Charter High School). Alice’s niece, Annie
Sakamoto, had been adopted by her sister Wilma and still lives in Hermon today. Alice
worked as a school teacher in Los Angeles from at least 1920-1940.
The Lees had three children. Their son David Lee, (Born 1921 in China). Another son,
Paul Lee, was born in 1926 in California. The youngest was daughter Ruth Lee, who
was born in 1928 in Inglewood, California. All three of the children were adopted, but
records indicate that Ruth may have been the couple's biological child. It should be
noted that it was common practice in California, at the time, to file new birth records in
the case of adoptions, listing the adoptive parents as the actual parents. Due to this red
tape, it is nearly impossible for the adoptive children to get their real birth records
without a court order.
Per census records, Edgar listed his employment field to be ‘Packing’ as of 1920. This
changed to a ‘Salesman’ of ‘Dry Goods’ in 1930. Mr. Lee eventually opened his own
store, becoming proprietor of a ‘Retail Gift Store’ in Pasadena by 1940. The family was
living in Long Beach in April 1935 and in 1938, Edgar built the home at 6111 Monterey
Road in Hermon for his family. Records also show that the Lees made several trips to
China over the course of their marriage, which unlike that of Ticie and Fong See (which
ended in a contract divorce), was to last until Alice Lee passed away June 19, 1962 at
the age of 70 at the family home in the Belmont Shores section of Long Beach. On
June 17, 1965, Edgar Lee married Opal J. Robison in Kern County and passed away
there on November 28, 1970, at the age of 74.
The home features decorative details that are evocative of a distinctly Chinese aesthetic
tradition. Perhaps the most notable features being the decorative roof eaves, the
hipped pyramidal clay tile roof with sloped corners and a curved decorative center peak,
and exterior trim on the front portion which includes half timbering and decorative
terracotta grilles.
The Lee Residence qualifies for Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument as a rare
example of a Chinese style house built at a time when the Chinese were officially
classified as persona non grata by the United States. It is also significant as it reflects
the broad cultural and social history of the nation, state and the Hermon Community
both for its association with the history of Chinese immigration and assimilation into the
American Culture and how one family defied the norms and created a life for
themselves in spite of legal and cultural odds against them, helping to redefine and
eliminate the taboos against them. Also, the association with the early history of the
Hermon community
Bibliography
Goodhew, Edna F.………..…….Echoes from Half a Century, © 1960, Los Angeles Pacific College
See, Lisa …………….....………...................………. On Gold Mountain, © 1995, St. Martin's Press
Other Sources
Los Angeles Times Articles:
Mrs. Alice Luella Lee Obituary (Attached)......................................................June 22, 1962, Page 28
Wikipedia Articles:
Chinese Exclusion Act (Attached)
Magnuson Act (Attached)
Perez v. Sharp (Attached)
Reports:
National Register Bulletin No. 15...…How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 1990
Other Official Records:
Los Angeles County Assessor's Office Maps and Tax Records
Los Angeles County Subdivision Map for Oak Hill Park Tract, 2 MB 75-76
United States Census Records from 1900 through 1940
United States Immigration Records
Social Security Death Index
California Death Index
! ! " # $ $ % & # ' ( ) * + , - " . ( / 0 - +1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > 9 > ?@ A B C 1 D 8 E 7 F < 8 7 D G H D F E 4 F D B 7 I J : K : > ? L M G N O P B JQ R A 5 D N S 8 A B R 7 8 N T 8 U I 1 < T V : W : X T Y 2 Z Z >< N N 7 N N A 8 1 D 8 E 7 F 3 A L G < 1 3 J : > 9 = ; ; M ; ; WQ 8 D E B [ < \ ] 2 @ @ 1 < Y \ Q Y < H Q^ D _ Y 7 P 7 8 7 ` E 7 ^ S = X ? : C ? aS F A E b =@ A B = c< 8 6 G @ A B H 4 B Y 7 P 7 8 7 ` E 7 J 3 A ` 7^ D _ d R 7 7 B 9 : ; < = > 9e f " 0 $ ! 0 g / 0 - + ( ) * + , - " . ( / 0 - +H A 5 5 4 ` U B h 1 F D ` < 8 7 D 3 A 8 B R 7 D N B @ A N < ` i 7 F 7 N< 8 7 D 1 F D ` ` U ` i H A 5 5 U N N U A ` V D N B @ A N < ` i 7 F 7 N3 7 U i R 6 A 8 R A A I H A 4 ` E U F < 8 8 A h A d 7 E AH A 4 ` E U F Z U N B 8 U E B H Z 9 M X j A N 7 ] 4 U k D 8H 7 ` N 4 N Q 8 D E B l 9 c > ? L ; =@ < Z S d Z U N B 8 U E B [ P P U E 7 @ A N < ` i 7 F 7 N ^ 7 B 8 Am ) ( + + 0 + ' ( + ! n - + 0 + ' * + , - " . ( / 0 - +d _ 7 E U D F 3 A B 7 N 3 A ` 7o A ` U ` i Y Z 9 L : X 9o A ` U ` i 2 ` P A 8 5 D B U A ` G o 2 J o 2 X = M = ? p 8 7 7 q D h < I r D E 7 ` B < I s U N A 8 h 3 A B U E 7 P A 8 d 7 ` N U B U s 7 t N 7 No 2 X = 9 = W V < d Q @ [ d < 3 T V @ V d d Q < Q V V 3 Q V Y 1 Y 2 d V o [ 3 VT 7 ` 7 8 D F 1 F D ` @ D ` I t N 7 @ A q ^ 7 I U 4 5 2 2 Y 7 N U I 7 ` B U D FT 7 ` 7 8 D F 1 F D ` p A A B ` A B 7 G N J u 7 N] U F F N U I 7 < 8 7 D G o A ` U ` i H A I 7 J u 7 NS D N 7 F U ` 7 ] U F F N U I 7 [ 8 I U ` D ` E 7 3 AS D N 7 F U ` 7 ^ D ` N U A ` U k D B U A ` [ 8 I U ` D ` E 7 3 Ad _ 7 E U P U E 1 F D ` < 8 7 D 3 A ` 7d _ 7 E U D F @ D ` I t N 7 C o A ` U ` i 3 A ` 7Z 7 N U i ` Y 7 s U 7 q S A D 8 I 3 A] U N B A 8 U E 1 8 7 N 7 8 s D B U A ` Y 7 s U 7 q 3 A] U N B A 8 U E 1 8 7 N 7 8 s D B U A ` [ s 7 8 F D h o A ` 7 3 A ` 7[ B R 7 8 ] U N B A 8 U E Z 7 N U i ` D B U A ` N 3 A ` 7[ B R 7 8 ] U N B A 8 U E d 4 8 s 7 h 2 ` P A 8 5 D B U A ` 3 A ` 7^ U F F N < E B H A ` B 8 D E B 3 A ` 71 [ Z X 1 7 I 7 N B 8 U D ` [ 8 U 7 ` B 7 I Z U N B 8 U E B N 3 A ` 7H Z [ X H A 5 5 4 ` U B h Z 7 N U i ` [ s 7 8 F D h 3 A ` 73 d [ X 3 7 U i R 6 A 8 R A A I d B D 6 U F U k D B U A ` [ s 7 8 F D h 3 Ad U i ` Z U N B 8 U E B 3 Ad B 8 7 7 B N E D _ 7 3 A< I D _ B U s 7 Y 7 4 N 7 2 ` E 7 ` B U s 7 < 8 7 D 3 A ` 7V F F U N < E B 1 8 A _ 7 8 B h 3 AY 7 ` B d B D 6 U F U k D B U A ` [ 8 I U ` D ` E 7 G Y d [ J 3 AH Y < X H A 5 5 4 ` U B h Y 7 I 7 s 7 F A _ 5 7 ` B < i 7 ` E h 3 A ` 7H 7 ` B 8 D F H U B h 1 D 8 b U ` i 3 AZ A q ` B A q ` 1 D 8 b U ` i 3 A
m v w m x v y z { { v x | | x |a 9 9 = 3 Q [ @ Q V H } < ua 9 9 9 3 ^ [ 3 Q V Y V u Y [ < Zn * m ~ w { x |W ; ; M =v x ~ x � y ~ y * � * y z3 A ` 7~ | x � � � � x v |H 1 H X 9 W c W X = = M W ;H 1 H X 9 W c W X 9 ? ? X 2 1 Y [H 1 H X 9 W c a X c = a X T 1 H[ Y Z X 9 ? > M a a X d < : : 9 ; H[ Y Z X 9 ? = > 9 a[ Y Z X 9 a a = 9 a X d < = > = =[ Y Z X 9 = W = ? W� Q Q X ? M 9 : ? X d @V 3 � X = ; 9 a X W = c X V < pV 3 � X = ; 9 > X > > W = X H V
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ £ � � � � � � � � ¦ � � � � § � � � � § � � � � � � � ¨ � � £ � � � � � � © � � � � � ª � ¤ � � � � � « � � ¬ � � � � � � � © � � � � � � � � � � � � � £ � � � � � � � � � �® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ ± µ ¯ ¶ · ³ ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ´ ± ½ ½ ¯ ½ º ³ ´ ± µ ¯ ¶ · ³ ¸ ¹ º
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` 4 # O a + [ S b , , ,7 > > ( > > ( $ c ; d 5 * 8 ( ; ( % . ` 4 # O a T T V b , , ,' 4 > . < _ % ( 5 W 1 4 % & ( , V e T T e S +' 4 > . / 4 # ( 7 ; * ! % . a f , , b , , fg 4 A ^ 4 . ( 7 5 ( 4 U? ( ( $ ^ ( = ) * O P W " . B W # ( 5 6 Q V ] V + +T , f V h R US h [ + , h [S R S U + [ h ] [S T f R h R h ] [ ! " # $ " % & Si ( 4 5 ! " # . S V R f ! " # $ " % & W # 4 > > ? h ) ! ; X ( 5 * = \ % " . > S) ! ; X ( 5 * = ( $ 5 * * ; > U) ! ; X ( 5 * = 4 . 1 5 * * ; > R ! " # $ " % & / j ! 4 5 ( - * * . 4 & ( T b T V T O , P > j = . Q ! " # $ " % & T ) * $ 4 . 4 = * 5 X ! " # $ " % & T ! " # $ " % & R ) * $ 4 . 4 = * 5 X ! " # $ " % & R ! " # $ " % & U ) * $ 4 . 4 = * 5 X ! " # $ " % & U ! " # $ " % & + ) * $ 4 . 4 = * 5 X ! " # $ " % & +C k k N M N F I L l H I J F G K L M N F I7 " 5 d * 5 . : 4 m 4 5 $ ) * % (W * 4 > . 4 # 2 * % ( ) * % (- 4 5 ; # 4 % $ 7 5 ( 4 ) * . n 4 d d ( $` ( 5 B : " & 1 - " 5 ( : 4 m 4 5 $ / ( 8 ( 5 " . B 2 * % ( i ( >- " 5 ( ? " > . 5 " 0 . ) * O S ) *- # * * $ 2 * % ( ) * % (Y 4 . ( 5 0 * ! 5 > ( ) *: 4 m 4 5 $ * ! > Y 4 > . ( e * 5 $ ( 5 2 * % ( 3 5 * d ( 5 . " ( > ) *n ( . 1 4 % ( : 4 m 4 5 $ / " . ( ) * % (: " & 1 Y " % $ ` ( # * 0 " . B 7 5 ( 4 > ) */ d ( 0 " 4 # o 5 4 $ " % & 7 5 ( 4 P < @ 4 > " 0 o 5 " $ n 4 d 7 ]S R R [ T Q i ( >< " # Y ( # # > ) * % (p E N D K N q r L s L G k D7 0 . " 8 ( - 4 ! # . ) ( 4 5 ] / * ! 5 0 ( 2 * % () ( 4 5 ( > . - 4 ! # . P ? " > . 4 % 0 ( " % 6 ; Q S O T V U , T f U) ( 4 5 ( > . - 4 ! # . P ) 4 ; ( Q ^ 4 B ; * % $ - 4 ! # .^ ( & " * % g 5 4 % > 8 ( 5 > ( ^ 4 % & ( > 4 % $ ' * > 7 % & ( # ( > 4 > " %- 4 ! # . g B d ( / # " d ^ 4 . ( P ; ; e B ( 4 5 Q S O + , , , , , , ,/ # " d o ( * ; ( . 5 B ' ( = . ' 4 . ( 5 4 # ] ^ ( 8 ( 5 > ( ] < X # " j ! (/ # " d g B d ( n * $ ( 5 4 . ( # B W * % > . 5 4 " % ( $? * _ % ? " d Y " $ . 1 P 6 ; Q S R O , , , , , , , ,^ ! d . ! 5 ( g * d , O , , , , , , , ,t u v w x y z { x | v w w } ~ � y � | | { | u y | y x � w � � � � { � � v | v { � w � w w y | � { x | u { � | u y � y ~ w v | y � � { x � { x y � y | � v � w � z � y � w y x y � y x | { | u y | y x � w � � � � { � � v | v { � w � | � v � � w � � � � v | � � { x �� � � � � � � � x y � v w z x { � v � y � � � w v w � � x { � | u y � { w � � � y � y w � { } � | � � w � } ~ � v � � { x � w � � � { { � � { � | x { � � � y � y � v | � w w y w w � y � | �� � � ¡ ¢ £ ¤ � ¥ ¦ ¢ § ¨ © ª « £ ¬ ¬ � ¬ © ¢ £ ¤ � ¥ ¦ ¢ § ¨ ©
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` H / B a _ C _ H H I / I _ _ B I _ ? J H _ A ` B _I ; $ 1 % # % 4 B % . 1 b c ' $ b ' ' 4 J 0 . # . ; # . [ % B ' 0 %d e f T P L g Y h R V i? ' 2 . E % J 0 D ' $ ( ; # . ' 0& ! $ % ; ! ] % 0 # $ ; 2- . [ . 5 . ' 0 j H # ; # . ' 0 k ' 2 2 % 0 c % E l % " ' $ # . 0 1 - . 5 # $ . E # m , m@ . $ % J 0 D ' $ ( ; # . ' 0& ! $ % ; ! ] % 0 # $ ; 2& ; # ; 2 2 . ' 0 n- . 5 # $ . E # j @ . $ % H # ; # . ' 0 ) n % 4 @ 2 ; 1 % 5 # $ . E # % 4 ? ; $ l . 0 1 B '
o p q r s t u v s w q r r x y z t { w w v w p t w t s | r } ~ � { v ~ � q w q v ~ r } r r t w � v s w p v ~ w p t � t y r q w t � � v s | v s t � t w } q � r � u � t } r t s t � t s w v w p t w t s | r } ~ � { v ~ � q w q v ~ r } w � q | } r � � } { q w � � v s �� � � � � � � � s t } q r u s v � q � t � � } r q r � � s v | w p t � v r � ~ � t � t r � v x ~ w � � r � x y � q { � v s � r � � � v v � � v ~ w s v � � � t ~ t � q w � r r t r r | t ~ w �� � � � � � � � � � ¡ � ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ � � § § � § ¤ � � � � � ¡ � ¢ £ ¤
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` F: 0 ) S + 4 * = + 5 4 0 3 > * 3 ) . 5 E 5 F , [ V ( V P R X : X R ( \ ] U ( - ( [ @ U ( C - C A V ( @ ^ I ] U ( V @ a R ( [ V C I a V - [ a A = - C A P - @ A @ a R ( [ V C R ( = : X R ( R W V ( = W V ( A C IY R P - U b C X U @ R A - U ( C@ 2 5 + ( 6 1 G + 0 , Y A A I T N J c T I C XP + Q 6 3 0 + 8 R 4 * 3 ) . E 5 F , C X I C W R X X X U A C b _ = - Y - C - U (: 0 ) S + 4 * = + 5 4 0 3 > * 3 ) . 5 E 5 F , Y V C A - ( A V ( A R A - Y V A P R @ A W R : : V P C V @ A - U ( J T H O O d X R W @ d ( V e L I b ( - A C W R X X X U A C b _ = Y - C - U ( - ( A a V P = J H c I J ] U ( V H@ 2 5 + ( 6 1 G + 0 , V ( Y I M O J Z I K M L I V R fP + Q 6 3 0 + 8 R 4 * 3 ) . E 5 F , V R f I V ( Y - P U ( W V ( A R X R C C V C C W V ( A: 0 ) S + 4 * = + 5 4 0 3 > * 3 ) . 5 E 5 F , = 2 * 2 ( ) * R 7 2 3 ; 2 G ; +@ 2 5 + ( 6 1 G + 0 , V ( Y I M O J ` I ` ` K M I @ VP + Q 6 3 0 + 8 R 4 * 3 ) . E 5 F , @ V I @ R A V [ U P - @ R X V g V W : A - U (: 0 ) S + 4 * = + 5 4 0 3 > * 3 ) . 5 E 5 F , A a V : P U : U C V = U P = - ( R ( @ V W U = - f - V C C V @ A - U ( M M H J J K U f A a V X U C R ( [ V X V C R = W - ( - C A P R A - Y V @ U = V A U R X X U eU P - [ - ( R X R P A W b P R X C U ( X U A C = V Y V X U : V = e - A a U ( X ^ U ( V C - ( [ X V I f R W - X ^ P V C - = V ( A - R X C A P b @ A b P V R ( = A a R A R P VX U @ R A V = e - A a - ( @ U b ( @ - X = - C A P - @ A C J d K d R ( = J N Hh ! i ! j k i ! l ! ' m ! n m #U P = I J T ` N Z Z I C R c c J O @U P = I J T M ` J ZU P = I J Z Z M J Z I C R M ` M MU P = I J M K M T K
o p q r s t u v s w q r r x y z t { w w v w p t w t s | r } ~ � { v ~ � q w q v ~ r } r r t w � v s w p v ~ w p t � t y r q w t � � v s | v s t � t w } q � r � u � t } r t s t � t s w v w p t w t s | r } ~ � { v ~ � q w q v ~ r } w � q | } r � � } { q w � � v s �� � � � � � � � s t } q r u s v � q � t � � } r q r � � s v | w p t � v r � ~ � t � t r � v x ~ w � � r � x y � q { � v s � r � � � v v � � v ~ w s v � � � t ~ t � q w � r r t r r | t ~ w �� � � � � � � � � � ¡ � ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ � � § § � § ¤ � � � � � ¡ � ¢ £ ¤
�
������
Annie Sakamoto from Hermon
In 1946, I came to live with Miss Wilma C Stuart as one of her foster children.
Her middle sister, Alice Stuart, lived with husband, Edgar Lee, and their 3 adopted
Chinese children. I've known each of the family very well, as we would visit them
or they would come to our house for special occasions.
The 3 sisters Stuarts, including father Rev Wm Stuart, Ella C Stuart, were part of the early
Hermon settlers in 1903. The girls attended Bushnell Way Elem. School. Mary and Wilma
attended LA seminary on what's current LAI grounds.
Mary taught for a few yrs at Bushnell Way before the family moved to San Diego to further
Mary's teaching education then returned to Hermon area. All 3 sisters taught for many yrs
through the LAUSD
Thank you, Kristen, very much for the Lee's background info and especially their photos.
Annie Sakamoto from Hermon
Enclosed is a photo of very early days of Hermon Elem School in which Mary
Stuart, standing in the background was one of the teachers. Her sister, Wilma, is
inside the red circle. I'm attempting to send the photo of The Stuart family:
parents, 3 Stuart Sisters.
�
�����
Annie Sakamoto from Hermon
Enclosed is the photo of Stuart family in early days of Hermon. Stuarts' parents,
Mrs Ella Stuart (who was so pretty), Rev Wm Stuart holding little Wilma in his
lap, 2 other Stuart sisters (Mary with long hairs to one side), Alice Stuart (in
ribbon on top of hand, and unidentified aunt (?)
Long title An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations
relating to Chinese.
Nicknames Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
Enacted by the 47th United States Congress
Effective May 6, 1882
Citations
Public law 47-126 (http://legisworks.org/congress
/47/session-1/chap-126.pdf)
Statutes at
Large
22 Stat. 58 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-22-58)
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 5804 by Horace F. Page
(R–CA) on April 12, 1882
Committee consideration by House Foreign Relations
Passed the house on April 17, 1882 (202-37
(https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/47-1/h83))
Passed the Senate on April 28, 1882 (32-15
(https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/47-1/s370)) with
amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on May 3,
1882 (Agreed)
Signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6,
1882
Chinese Exclusion Act
The first page of the Chinese
Exclusion Act
This "Official Map of Chinatown 1885" was
published as part of an official report of a
Special Committee established by the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors "on the
Condition of the Chinese Quarter"
Chinese Exclusion ActFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A.
Arthur on May 6, 1882. It was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in US
history, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. The act followed the Angell Treaty of
1880, a set of revisions to the US-China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the US to
suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was
renewed in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. The Chinese Exclusion Act
was the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United
States. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.
Contents
1 Background
2 The Act
3 Repeal and current status
4 See also
5 Footnotes
6 Further reading
7 External links
Background
The first significant Chinese immigration to North America began with the California Gold Rush
of 1848–1855 and continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the
First Transcontinental Railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was
plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated, if not well received.[1] As gold became harder to find and
competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased. After being
forcibly driven from the mines, most Chinese settled in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco,
and took up low-wage labor, such as restaurant and laundry work. With the post-Civil War
economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader
Denis Kearney and his Workingman's Party[2] as well as by California Governor John Bigler,
both of whom blamed Chinese "coolies" for depressed wage levels. Another significant
anti-Chinese group organized in California during this same era was the Supreme Order of
Caucasians, with some 60 chapters statewide.
In the early 1850s, there was resistance to the idea of excluding Chinese migrant workers from immigration, because they
provided essential tax revenue which helped fill the fiscal gap of California.[3] But toward the end of the decade, the financial
situation improved and subsequently, attempts to legislate Chinese exclusion became successful on the state level.[3] In 1858, the
California Legislature passed a law that made it illegal for any person "of the Chinese or Mongolian races" to enter the state;
however, this law was struck down by an unpublished opinion of the State Supreme Court in 1862.[4] The Chinese immigrant
workers provided cheap labor and did not use any of the government infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) because the Chinese
migrant population was predominantly made up of healthy male adults.[3] As time passed and more and more Chinese migrants
arrived in California, violence would often break out in cities such as Los Angeles. By 1878 Congress decided to act and passed
legislation excluding the Chinese, but this was vetoed by President Rutherford B. Hayes. In 1879, California adopted a new
Constitution, which explicitly authorized the state government to determine which individuals were allowed to reside in the state,
and banned the Chinese from employment by corporations and state, county or municipal governments.[5] Once the Chinese
Exclusion Act was finally passed in 1882, California went further by passing various laws that were later held to be
unconstitutional.[6] After the act was passed, most Chinese families were faced with a dilemma: stay in the United States alone or
go back to China to reunite with their families.[7] Although there was widespread dislike for the Chinese, some capitalists and
entrepreneurs resisted their exclusion because they accepted lower wages.[8]
The Act
For the first time, Federal law proscribed entry of an ethnic working group on the premise that it endangered the
good order of certain localities. (The earlier Page Act of 1875 had prohibited immigration of Asian forced laborers
and prostitutes, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 prohibited naturalization of non-white subjects.) The Act
excluded Chinese laborers, meaning "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining," from
entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation.[9][10]
The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few nonlaborers who sought entry to obtain certification from the Chinese
government that they were qualified to emigrate. However, this group found it increasingly difficult to prove that
they were not laborers[10] because the 1882 act defined excludables as “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese
employed in mining.” Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law. Diplomatic officials and
Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
1 of 5 9/26/2016 10:47 PM
Chinese immigrant workers building
the Transcontinental Railroad
Front page of The San Francisco Call
-November 20th 1901, Chinese
Exclusion Convention
A political cartoon from 1882,
showing a Chinese man being barred
entry to the "Golden Gate of Liberty".
The caption reads, "We must draw the
line somewhere, you know."
Certificate of identity issued to
Yee Wee Thing certifying that
he is the son of a US citizen,
issued Nov. 21, 1916. This was
necessary for his immigration
from China to the United
States.
other officers on business, along with their house servants, for the Chinese government were also allowed entry as long
as they had the proper certification verifying their credentials.[11]
The Act also affected the Chinese who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States
had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the Act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from
U.S. citizenship.[9][10] After the Act's passage, Chinese men in the U.S. had little chance of ever reuniting with their
wives, or of starting families in their new abodes.[9]
Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous immigrants to leave and return, and clarified
that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The Scott Act (1888) expanded upon the
Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry after leaving the U.S. Constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the
Scott Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889); the Supreme Court declared
that "the power of exclusion of foreigners [is] an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United
States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution." The Act was renewed for ten years by the 1892
Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902.[10] When the act was extended in 1902, it required "each Chinese
resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation."[10]
Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually
via a petition for habeas corpus.[12] In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner.[12] Except in cases
of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court in U.S. vs Lem Moon Sing (1895). In U.S. vs Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the
port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy's petition was thus
barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that
refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. All
these developments, along with the extension of the act in 1902, triggered a boycott of U.S. goods in China between
1904 and 1906.[13] There was one 1885 case in San Francisco, however, in which Treasury Department officials in
Washington overturned a decision to deny entry to two Chinese Students.[14]
One of the critics of the Chinese Exclusion Act was the anti-slavery/anti-imperialist Republican Senator George Frisbie
Hoar of Massachusetts who described the Act as "nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination."[15]
The laws were driven largely by racial concerns; immigration of persons of other races was unlimited during this
period.[16]
On the other hand, many people strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, including the Knights of Labor, a labor
union, who supported it because it believed that industrialists were using Chinese workers as a wedge to keep wages
low.[17] Among labor and leftist organizations, the Industrial Workers of the World were the sole exception to this pattern. The IWW openly opposed the
Chinese Exclusion Act from its inception in 1905.[18]
For all practical purposes, the Exclusion Act, along with the restrictions that followed
it, froze the Chinese community in place in 1882. Limited immigration from China
continued until the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943. From 1910 to 1940,
the Angel Island Immigration Station on what is now Angel Island State Park in San
Francisco Bay served as the processing center for most of the 56,113 Chinese
immigrants who are recorded as immigrating or returning from China; upwards of 30%
more who showed up were returned to China. Furthermore, after the 1906 San
Francisco earthquake, which destroyed City Hall and the Hall of Records, many
immigrants (known as "paper sons") claimed that they had familial ties to resident
Chinese-American citizens. Whether these were true or not cannot be proven.
The Chinese Exclusion Act gave rise to the first great wave of commercial human
smuggling, an activity that later spread to include other national and ethnic groups.[19]
The Chinese Exclusion Act also led to an expansion of the power of U.S. immigration
law through its influence on Canada's policies on Chinese exclusion during this time
because of the need for greater vigilance at the U.S.-Canada border. Shortly after the
U.S. Chinese Exclusion Act, Canada established the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885
which imposed a head tax on Chinese migrants entering Canada. After increasing
pressure from the U.S. government, Canada finally established the Chinese Immigration
Act, 1923 which banned most forms of immigration by the Chinese to Canada. There was also a need for this kind of border
control along the U.S-Mexico border, however, efforts to control the border went along a different path because Mexico was
fearful of expanding imperial power of the U.S. and did not want U.S. interference in Mexico. Not only this, but Chinese
immigration to Mexico was welcomed because the Chinese immigrants filled Mexico's labor needs. The Chinese Exclusion Act actually led to heightened
Chinese immigration to Mexico because of exclusion by the U.S. Therefore, the U.S. resorted to heavily policing the border along Mexico.
Later, the Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian
immigrant groups.[9] Until these restrictions were relaxed in the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were forced to live a life separated from
their families, and to build ethnic enclaves in which they could survive on their own (Chinatown).[9] The Chinese Exclusion Act did not address the problems
that whites were facing; in fact, the Chinese were quickly and eagerly replaced by the Japanese, who assumed the role of the Chinese in society. Unlike the
Chinese, some Japanese were even able to climb the rungs of society by setting up businesses or becoming truck farmers.[20] However, the Japanese were later
targeted in the National Origins Act of 1924, which banned immigration from east Asia entirely.
Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
2 of 5 9/26/2016 10:47 PM
In 1891 the Government of China refused to accept the U.S. Senator Mr. Henry W. Blair as U.S. Minister to China due to his abusive remarks regarding China
during negotiation of the Chinese Exclusion Act.[21]
The American Christian Rev. Dr. George F. Pentecost spoke out against western imperialism in China, saying: I personally feel convinced that it would be a
good thing for America if the embargo on Chinese immigration were removed. I think that the annual admission of 100,000 into this country would be a good
thing for the country. And if the same thing were done in the Philippines those islands would be a veritable Garden of Eden in twenty-five years. The presence
of Chinese workmen in this country would, in my opinion, do a very great deal toward solving our labor problems. There is no comparison between the
Chinaman, even of the lowest coolie class, and the man who comes here from Southeastern Europe, from Russia, or from Southern Italy. The Chinese are
thoroughly good workers. That is why the laborers here hate them. I think, too, that the emigration to America would help the Chinese. At least he would come
into contact with some real Christian people in America. The Chinaman lives in squalor because he is poor. If he had some prosperity his squalor would
cease.[22]
Repeal and current status
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, during a time when China had become an ally of the U.S. against Japan in World War II.
This repeal also occurred in the context of World War II, during which the U.S. fought against German Nazism and needed to embody an image of fairness and
justice, and also during a time when the Japanese were becoming vilified. The Magnuson Act permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to
become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. While the Magnuson Act overturned the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act, it
only allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year, and did not repeal the restrictions on immigration from the other Asian countries. Large scale
Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The crackdown on Chinese immigrants reached a new level
in its last decade, from 1956–1965, with the Chinese Confession Program launched by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that encouraged Chinese
who had committed immigration fraud to confess, so as to be eligible for some leniency in treatment.
Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites was not repealed until 1948, in
which the California Supreme Court ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp.[23][24] Other states had such laws
until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws across the nation are unconstitutional.
Even today, although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed "Exclusion of Chinese."[25] It
is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group.
On June 18, 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Judy Chu, that formally expresses the regret of
the House of Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Act, which imposed almost total restrictions on Chinese immigration and naturalization and denied
Chinese-Americans basic freedoms because of their ethnicity.[26] The resolution had been approved by the U.S. Senate in October 2011.[27]
In 2014, the California Legislature took formal action to pass measures that formally recognize the many proud accomplishments of Chinese-Americans in
California and to call upon Congress to formally apologize for the 1882 adoption of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff
(R-Diamond Bar) and incoming Senate President pro-Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) served as Joint Authors for Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 23 and
Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 122.[28]
SJR 23 acknowledges and celebrates the history and contributions of Chinese Americans in California. The resolution also formally calls on Congress to
apologize for laws which resulted in the persecution of Chinese Americans, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.[29]
Perhaps most importantly is the sociological implications for understanding ethnic/race relations in the context of American history: there is a tendency for
minorities to be punished in times of economic, political and/or geopolitical crises. Times of social and sytemic stability, however, tend to mute whatever
underlying tensions exist between different groups. In times of societal crisis--whether perceived or real--patterns or retractability of American identities have
eurupted to the fore of America's political landscape, often generating institutional and civil society backlash against workers from other nations, a pattern
documented by Fong's research into how crises drastically alters social relationships.[30]
See also
Anti-Chinese legislation in the United States
Chinese Confession Program
Chinese exclusion policy of NASA
Chinese massacre of 1871
Head tax (Canada)
List of United States immigration legislation
New Zealand head tax
Paper Sons
Rock Springs massacre
Sinophobia
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that the Chinese Exclusion Act could not overrule the citizenship of those born in the U.S. to Chinese parents
White Australia policy
Yamataya v. Fisher (Japanese Immigrant Case)
Yellow Peril
Footnotes
Norton, Henry K. (1924). The Story of California From the Earliest Days to
the Present. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co. pp. 283–296.
1. Kearney, Denis (28 February 1878), Appeal from California. The Chinese
Invasion. Workingmen’s Address, Indianapolis Times, retrieved 5 May 2014
2.
Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
3 of 5 9/26/2016 10:47 PM
Wikisource has several
original texts related to:
Chinese Exclusion Act
Wikimedia Commons has
media related to Chinese
Exclusion Act.
Kanazawa, Mark. "Immigration, Exclusion, and Taxation: Anti-Chinese
Legislation in Gold Rush California". The Journal of Economic History, Vol.
65, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 779–805. Published by: Cambridge University
Press on behalf of the Economic History Association.
3.
"Text of the Chinese Exclusion Act" (PDF). University of California, Hastings
College of the Law. Retrieved 2014-05-05.
4.
"Constitution of the State of California, 1879" (PDF).5.
Cole, L. Cheryl."Chinese Exclusion: The Capitalist Perspective of the
Sacramento Union, 1850–1882".California History, Vol. 57, No. 1, The Chinese
in California (Spring, 1978), pp. 8–31. Published by: California Historical
Society
6.
Chew, Kenneth and Liu, John. "Hidden in Plain Sight: Global Labor Force
Exchange in the Chinese American Population, 1880–1940". Population and
Development Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 57–78.Published by:
Population Council
7.
Miller, Joaquin. "The Chinese and the Exclusion Act". The North American
Review, Vol. 173, No. 541 (Dec., 1901), pp. 782–789. Published by:
University of Northern Iowa
8.
"Exclusion". Library of Congress. 2003-09-01. Retrieved 2010-01-25.9.
"The People's Vote: Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)". U.S. News & World
Report. Archived from the original on 28 March 2007. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
10.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=47&page=transcript11.
Daniel, Roger, "Book Review (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals
/lhr/17.1/br_11.html)"
12.
Jonathan H. X. Lee (2015). Chinese Americans: The History and Culture of a
People. ABC-CLIO. p. 26.
13.
Erika Lee,At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era,
1882–1943.p67
14.
Daniels, Roger (2002). Coming to America: A History of Immigration and
Ethnicity in American Life. Harper Perennial. p. 271. ISBN 978-0060505776.
15.
Chin, Gabriel J., (1998) (http://papers.ssrn.com
/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121119)UCLA Law Review vol. 46, at 1
"Segregation's Last Stronghold: Race Discrimination and the Constitutional Law
of Immigration"
16.
Kennedy, David M. Cohen, Lizabeth, Bailey, Thomas A. The American
Pageant. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002
17.
Choi, Jennifer Jung Hee (1999). "The Rhetoric of Inclusion: The I.W.W. and
Asian Workers" (PDF). Ex Post Facto: Journal of the History Students at San
Francisco State University. 8: 9.
18.
Zhang, Sheldon (2007). Smuggling and trafficking in human beings: all roads
lead to America. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 69.
ISBN 978-0-275-98951-4.
19.
Alan Brinkley's American History: A Survey, 12th Edition20.
E. Denza, Commentary to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
Third Ed. Oxford University Press 2008, p. 51
21.
"AMERICA NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION, SAYS DR. PENTECOST". The
New York Times. February 11, 1912. Archived from the original on 25 March
2014.
22.
Chin, Gabriel; Karthikeyan, Hrishi (2002). "Preserving Racial Identity:
Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to
Asian Americans, 1910–1950". Asian Law Journal. Social Science Research
Network. 9. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
23.
See Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711 (http://online.ceb.com/CalCases
/C2/32C2d711.htm) (1948).
24.
"US CODE-TITLE 8-ALIENS AND NATIONALITY". FindLaw. Retrieved
5 May 2014.
25.
112th Congress (2012) (June 8, 2012). "H.Res. 683 (112th)". Legislation.
GovTrack.us. Retrieved August 9, 2012. "Expressing the regret of the House of
Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in
the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act."
26.
"US apologizes for Chinese Exclusion Act" (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn
/world/2012-06/19/content_15512469.htm) China Daily, 19 June 2012
27.
"Legislature Recognizes the Contributions of Chinese-Americans & Apologizes
for Past Discriminatory Laws". cssrc.us.
28.
"Bill Text". ca.gov.29.
Fong, Jack. "American Social 'Reminders' of Citizenship after September 11,
2001: Nativisms in the Ethnocratic Retractability of American Identity".
Qualitative Sociology Review. 4 (1): 69–91.
30.
Further reading
Chinese Immigration Pamphlets in the California State Library. Vol. 1 (https://archive.org/details/chineseimmigrati01slsn) | Vol. 2 (https://archive.org
/details/chineseimmigrati02slsn) | Vol. 3 (https://archive.org/details/chineseimmigrati03slsn) | Vol. 4 (https://archive.org/details/chineseimmigrati04slsn),
"Bitter Melon: Inside America's Last Rural Chinese Town" (http://www.bittermelonbook.com/) How residents of Locke, California, the last rural Chinese
town in America, lived in the Sacramento Delta under the Chinese Exclusion Act
External links
George Frederick Seward and the Chinese Exclusion Act | "From the Stacks" at New-York Historical Society
(http://blog.nyhistory.org/george-frederick-seward-and-the-chinese-exclusion-act/)
George Frederick Seward Papers, MS 557, The New-York Historical Society (http://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids
/html/nyhs/seward/)
Text of 1880 Chinese Exclusion Treaty and 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act (http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest
/resources/archives/seven/chinxact.htm) – PBS.org
Chinese Exclusion Act (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/chinese.html) from the Library of Congress
Chinese Exclusion Act (http://sun.menloschool.org/~mbrody/ushistory/angel/exclusion_act/) – Menlo School
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=47) – Our Documents
Exclusion Act Case Files of Yee Wee Thing and Yee Bing Quai, two "Paper Sons" (http://www.paperson.com/history.htm)
The Yung Wing Project (http://www.ywproject.com) hosts the memoir of one of the earliest naturalized Chinese whose citizenship was revoked forty-six
years after having received it as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
An Alleged Wife (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/spring/alleged-wife-1.html) One Immigrant in the Chinese Exclusion Era
Collection of primary source documents relating to the Chinese Exclusion Act, from Harvard University. (http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/themes-
exclusion.html)
Primary source documents and images from the University of California (http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu/themed_collections
/subtopic2a.html)
The Rocky Road to Liberty: A Documented History of Chinese American Immigration and Exclusion (http://ca-soc.org/wpmu284a/documents/)
[1] (http://caamedia.org/separatelivesbrokendreams) Primary source documents and images related to the documentary "Separate Lives, Broken Dreams"
saga of the Chinese Exclusion Act era, e.g. political cartoons, immigrant case files and government correspondence from the National Archives.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Exclusion_Act&oldid=740050751"
Categories: 1882 in international relations 1882 in law 1882 in the United States Anti-Chinese legislation Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States
Anti-immigration politics in the United States Asian-American issues Chinese-American history History of immigration to the United States
History of racial segregation in the United States Race legislation in the United States United States federal immigration and nationality legislation
United States immigration and naturalization case law United States repealed legislation White supremacy in the United States
Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
4 of 5 9/26/2016 10:47 PM
This page was last modified on 18 September 2016, at 19:23.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
5 of 5 9/26/2016 10:47 PM
Long title An Act to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts, to
establish quotas, and for other purposes.
Acronyms
(colloquial)
CERA
Nicknames Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943
Enacted by the 78th United States Congress
Effective December 17, 1943
Citations
Public law 78-199 (http://legisworks.org/congress
/78/publaw-199.pdf)
Statutes at
Large
57 Stat. 600 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-57-600)
Codification
Titles amended 8 U.S.C.: Aliens and Nationality
U.S.C. sections
amended
8 U.S.C. ch. 7 (http://www.law.cornell.edu
/uscode/text/8/chapter-7) §§ 262-297 & 299
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 3070 by Warren
Magnuson (D–WA) on October 7, 1943
Committee consideration by House Immigration and
Naturalization, Senate Immigration and Naturalization
Passed the House on October 21, 1943 (Passed)
Passed the Senate on November 26, 1943 (Passed)
Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on
December 17, 1943
Magnuson Act
Wikisource has original
text related to this article:
Chinese Exclusion
Repeal Act
Magnuson ActFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Magnuson Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, was
immigration legislation proposed by U.S. Representative (later Senator) Warren G. Magnuson of
Washington and signed into law on December 17, 1943 in the United States.[1] It allowed
Chinese immigration for the first time since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and permitted
some Chinese immigrants already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens. This
marked the first time since the Naturalization Act of 1790 that any Asians were permitted to be
naturalized. However, the Magnuson Act provided for the continuation of the ban against the
ownership of property and businesses by ethnic Chinese. In many states, Chinese Americans
(including US citizens) were denied property-ownership rights either by law or de facto until the
Magnuson Act itself was fully repealed in 1965.[2]
The Magnuson Act was passed on December 17, 1943, two years after China became an official
allied nation to the United States in World War II. Although considered a positive development
by many, it was particularly restrictive of Chinese immigrants, limiting them to an annual quota
of 105 new entry visas. The quota was supposedly determined by the Immigration Act of 1924,
which set immigration from qualifying countries at 2% of the number of people who were
already living in the United States in 1890 of that nationality. However, the arrived-at number of
105 per annum granted to the Chinese was disproportionately low. (The quota should have been
2,150 per annum, as official census figures place the population of ethnic Chinese living in the
USA in 1890 at 107,488 persons.[3]) Regardless of the method of calculation, the number of
Chinese immigrants allowed into the USA was disproportionately low in ratio to the sanctioned
immigration of other nationalities and ethnicities.[4] Chinese immigration later increased with the
passage of the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965.[5]
References
Peters, Gerhard; Woolley, John T. "Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Statement on Signing the Bill to Repeal
the Chinese Exclusion Laws.," December 17, 1943". The American Presidency Project. University
of California - Santa Barbara.
1.
"An Unnoticed Struggle" (PDF). Japanese American Citizens League. 2008. Archived from the
original (PDF) on 2010-06-13. Retrieved 2014-02-05.
2.
"Comparison of Asian Populations during the Exclusion Years" (PDF). Retrieved 2014-02-05.3.
Chang, Iris (2003). The Chinese in America. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-03123-2.4.
Wei, William. "The Chinese-American Experience: An Introduction". HarpWeek. Retrieved
2014-02-05.
5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnuson_Act&oldid=737655839"
Categories: 1943 in law United States federal immigration and nationality legislation
History of immigration to the United States Chinese-American history History of the United States (1918–45)
1943 in international relations Anti-Chinese legislation China–United States relations
This page was last modified on 4 September 2016, at 07:12.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Magnuson Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson_Act
1 of 1 9/26/2016 10:48 PM
Perez v. Sharp
Court Supreme Court of California
Full case name Andrea D. Perez and Sylvester S.
Davis, Jr. v. A.W. Sharp, as County
Clerk of the County of Los Angeles
Decided October 1 1948
Citation(s) 32 Cal.2d 711
(https://www.courtlistener.com
/c/Cal.2d/32/711/), 198 P.2d 17
Case history
Prior action(s) none (original proceeding for Writ
of Mandate)
Holding
Marriage is a fundamental right in a free society; the
state may not restrict this right with respect to
restrictions based upon the race of the parties.
Court membership
Chief Judge Phil S. Gibson
Associate
Judges
John W. Shenk, Douglas L.
Edmonds, Jesse W. Carter, Roger J.
Traynor, B. Rey Schauer, Homer R.
Spence
Case opinions
Plurality Traynor, joined by Gibson, Carter
Concurrence Edmonds
Concur/dissent Shenk , joined by Schauer, Spence
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV cl. 1, and Cal. Civ. Code,
§§ 60, 69, 69a
Perez v. SharpFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perez v. Sharp,[1] also known as Perez v. Lippold and Perez v. Moroney, is a 1948 case decided by the
Supreme Court of California in which the court held by a 4-3 majority that the state's ban on interracial
marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The three-justice plurality decision was authored by Associate Justice Roger J. Traynor who would later serve
as the Court's Chief Justice. Justice Douglas L. Edmonds wrote his own concurrence of the judgment, leading
to a four-justice majority in favor of striking down the law. The dissent was written by Associate Justice John
W. Shenk, the second longest-serving member in the Court's history and a notable judicial conservative of his
day. The opinion was the first of any state to strike down an anti-miscegenation law in the United States.
Contents
1 Background
2 Court opinion
3 Significance
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
Background
Andrea Perez (a Mexican American woman) and Sylvester Davis (an African American man) met while
working in the defense industry in Los Angeles.[2]
Perez and Davis applied for a marriage license with the County Clerk of Los Angeles. On the application for a
marriage license, Andrea Perez listed her race as "white," and Sylvester Davis identified himself as "Negro."
Under the California law, individuals of Mexican ancestry generally were classified as white because of their
Spanish heritage.
The County Clerk (named W.G. Sharp) refused to issue the license based on California Civil Code Section 60,
which provided, "All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or
mulattoes are illegal and void" and on Section 69, which stated that "no license may be issued authorizing the
marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race".[3] At the time,
California's anti-miscegenation statute had banned interracial marriage since 1850, when it first enacted a
statute prohibiting whites from marrying blacks or mulattoes.
Perez, represented by Attorney Daniel G. Marshall,[4] petitioned the California Supreme Court for an original
Writ of Mandamus to compel the issuance of the license. Perez and Davis were both Catholics and wanted a
Catholic marriage with a Mass. One of their primary arguments, adopted by Justice Douglas Edmonds in his
concurring opinion, was that the Church was willing to marry them, and the state's anti-miscegenation law
infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacraments of their religion, including the sacrament of matrimony.[5]
Court opinion
The court held that marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice. The lead opinion by Justice Roger
Traynor and joined by Chief Justice Phil Gibson and Justice Jesse Carter, held that restrictions due to discrimination violated the constitutional requirements of
due process and equal protection of the laws. The court voided the California statute, holding that Section 69 of the California Civil Code was too vague and
uncertain to be enforceable restrictions on the fundamental right of marriage and that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment by impairing the right to marry
on the basis of race alone. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Douglas Edmonds held that the statute violated the religious freedom of the plaintiffs, since
the anti-miscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacrament of matrimony.
Significance
By its decision in this case, the California Supreme Court became the first court of the twentieth century to hold that a state anti-miscegenation law violates the
Federal Constitution.[6] It preceded Loving v. Virginia, the case in which the United States Supreme Court invalidated all such state statutes, by 19 years, and
antedated the civil rights milestones such as Brown v. Board of Education from which Loving benefited. Indeed, in Loving, Chief Justice Warren cited Perez in
footnote 5, and at least one scholar has discussed the extent to which Perez influenced his opinion.[7]
The California Supreme Court also based much of its 2008 decision In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 757, which declared that the portions of California
law which restrict marriage to be between a man and a woman to be unconstitutional, on Perez.
Perez v. Sharp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp
1 of 2 9/26/2016 10:48 PM
See also
Pace v. Alabama — 1883 case that upheld bans on interracial marriage, overturned by Loving v. Virginia
References
32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P. 2d 17 (Cal. 1948).1.
See Dara Orenstein, Void for Vagueness: Mexicans and the Collapse of Miscegenation Law in California, 74 Pac. Hist. Rev. 367, 367-68 (2005).2.
California Civil Code, section 69.3.
Lenhardt, R.A. (2015). "Beyond Analogy: Perez v. Sharp, Antimiscegenation Law, and the Fight for Same-Sex Marriage - viewcontent.cgi". pdf.js. Retrieved 27 June
2015.
4.
Rachel F. Moran, Loving and the Legacy of Unintended Consequences, 2007 Wis. L. Rev. 239, 268.5.
Kennedy, Randall (2003). Interracial Intimacies. Vintage Books. pp. 259–266. ISBN 0-375-70264-4.6.
See R.A. Lenhardt, "The Story of Perez v. Sharp: Forgotten Lessons on Race, Law, and Marriage", in Race Law Stories (Rachel F. Moran & Devon Carbado eds.,
forthcoming 2008).
7.
Further reading
R.A. Lenhardt, "Beyond Analogy: Perez V. Sharp, Antimiscegenation Law, and the Fight for Same-Sex Marriage," in California Law Review, vol. 96, no.
4, August 2008, 839-900
External links
Full text opinion of case (http://www.multiracial.com/government/perez-v-sharp.html)
California Supreme Court searchable database of opinions (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/continue.htm)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perez_v._Sharp&oldid=731739277"
Categories: United States equal protection case law Family law in the United States California state case law Race and law in the United States
1948 in United States case law
This page was last modified on 27 July 2016, at 06:25.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Perez v. Sharp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp
2 of 2 9/26/2016 10:48 PM
Building Permit History
6111 N. Monterey Road
Hermon
May 19, 1938: Building Permit No. 14776 to Construct a 2-story frame and
stucco, 8-room 30' X 52.5’ 1-family residence at 6111 N.
Monterey Road on Lots 27, 28 and 29, Block 2 of Oak Hill Park.
Owner: Edgar K. Lee
Architect: None
Engineer: None
Contractor: Foss Construction Company
Cost: $7,500.00
May 19, 1938: Building Permit No. 14777 to Construct a 2-story frame and
stucco, 20' X 22’ garage at 6111 N. Monterey Road on Lots 27,
28 and 29, Block 2 of Oak Hill Park.
Owner: Edgar K. Lee
Architect: None
Engineer: None
Contractor: Foss Construction Company
Cost: $264.00
June 3, 1938: Building Permit No. 26025 for tile work.
Owner: Edgar K. Lee
Architect: None
Engineer: None
Contractor: Premier Tile and Marble Company
Cost: Not Shown
July 3, 1942: Building Permit No. 8145 to level building and (illegible word).
Owner: Mrs. Lee
Architect: None
Engineer: None
Contractor: None
Cost: $100.00
June 13, 1980: Building Permit No. LA07747 to construct a retaining wall
(varies from 16” to 4½ Max) at rear of property.
Owner: E. Profumo
Architect: R. J. Kolodziej
Engineer: None
Contractor: Anthony Pools
Cost: $8,400.00
August 4, 1980: Building Permit No. LA07747 to construct a retaining wall
(varies from 16” to 4½ Max) at rear of property.
Owner: Eliza Profumo
Architect: None
Engineer: None
Contractor: Krier Builders
Cost: $800.00
Lee Residence Photographs
Lee Residence, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, satellite view, 6111 Monterey Road, January, 2016 (Photograph by Google Earth)
Lee Residence, foundation detail, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, rear facade, 6111 Monterey Road, 2015 (Photograph by Google Earth)
Lee Residence, South facade, chimney and addition, 6111 Monterey Road, 2015 (Photograph by Google Earth)
Lee Residence, chimney, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, addition on South side, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, top of roof,(damaged after sale to developer) , 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photoby Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, front porch, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence. regency bay, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, insert in front facade, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, North facade, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, garage, 6111 Monterey Road, August 10, 2016 (Photograph by Charles J. Fisher)
Lee Residence, 6111 Monterey Road, September, 2016 (Photograph by Mary Ringhoff-ARG)