135 years ago today, the Chinese population of Eureka was expelled following increased tensions and a flashpoint- the accidental shooting of Councilman Kendall.
| In the days leading up to the expulsion, local papers note that there was an increase in gunfire in and around Chinatown between Chinese residents. The papers neglect to go into why the gunfights occurred, and instead wave them off as foolishness on the side of the Chinese. In one of these gunfights, two bystanders were hit- Councilman Kendall and a young boy. Kendall was killed while the young boy was hit in the foot by a stray bullet and survived. Within an hour, word had gotten out about Kendall’s death and hundreds of people had assembled in the area. A meeting was called at nearby Centennial Hall to determine what should be done. A committee, known as the Committee of Fifteen comprised of leading men in the city was formed to speak with the leaders of Chinatown and tell them that the Chinese had 24 hours to pack up their things and be out of Eureka. |  A Sanborn map from May 1886, showing vacant Chinatown and nearby Centennial Hall. Library of Congress. |
 Charlie Moon, frequently named as the only remaining Chinese man in Humboldt County following the Chinese Expulsion, is show on the far right of this image. | Following the Eureka expulsion, the Committee of Fifteen encouraged other towns in the county to expel their Chinese residents. The expulsion from Eureka was praised as so thorough that not a single Chinese resident remained in the county- a myth that was widely shared for decades after the event. Local papers listed the names and businesses of the organizers for the Eureka Expulsion, encouraging readers to support their businesses and endeavors in thanks for their service on the Committee of Fifteen. |
This is usually the story that is told about the event- but it doesn't end there.
There were local individuals who supported the Chinese community, however, this was a widely unpopular stance that was not largely supported in the local press at the time. Reverend Huntington was one person who appears in the record as a supporter of the local Chinese community, offering classes to students and helping to save one of his students from being hanged by an angry mob thinking that the student, Charley, was trying to hide during the 1885 Expulsion. Another man, mentioned only as Rich the Minister of the Methodist Church, also spoke out against exclusion at the meeting immediately after Kendall was shot.
Huntington recorded in his journal (which can be read at the Humboldt County Historical Society) that someone at the Centennial Hall meeting following Kendall’s death proposed massacring everyone in China Town, which was declined. The next proposition was to loot and burn China Town, forcing its residents into the forest around the town and leaving them to the elements.
Sheriff Brown spoke at the meeting following these propositions, saying “Before anything there was done, I want you to understand that I am Sheriff of Humboldt County, sworn to uphold the law and I will do so to the end. That if anybody starts anything violating the law, they’ve got to reckon with me and my deputies”. He also called out the National Guard to protect the prison where 20 Chinese men accused of having been part of the gun fight that killed Kendall were being kept. This was the first time the National Guard was called out locally since Eureka was founded.
Earlier in the year, one story notes on January 13, 1885, there was a news story in the Times-Telephone concerning the Chinese, but with a different slant. It indicated some of the Chinese wanted to settle down, contrary to the narrative that all Chinese came to work, earn money, and go back to China. The news item read “Judge Maguire has decided that Chinese children are entitled to admission into the public schools of the State. The Judge says there is no law in California to prohibit Chinese children from attending the public schools and that if there was, it would be clearly unconstitutional, as being in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States...” the newspaper added: “this will further relieve our school trustees from the annoyance of answering further questions concerning the little Chinese girl that attends the primary school on Fourth Street, and we know they will be glad the matter is settled.” More research is needed to get the entirety of this story and connect it to similar events in other places.
In other places in the country, Chinese populations and individuals took cases to local, state, and federal courts. After the Eureka expulsion, many of Eureka’s Chinese residents in San Francisco called a meeting to demand reparations for not only property left behind (and later taken by Eurekans), but as victims of what could have become a massacre. Consul Bee, the Chinese consul in San Francisco argued that “all of the Chinese expelled are not criminals. Many of them are peaceable merchants, whose business has been broken up by their expulsion.” The consul built a case against the city’s actions and rightfully claimed that the outcome of his case Wing Hing v. Eureka, would set a precedent in future expulsion events- however the results were not in their favor. The case was dismissed under unclear circumstances, and other communities took note that expulsions could be repeated legally across the country without repercussions. (the entirety of the court case documents submitted by the Chinese in this case, titled Wing Hing v. Eureka, is available digitally from Humboldt State University's Special Collections.)
Between 1882 and 1905, Chinese individuals nationally filed more than 10,000 federal lawsuits, with 20 of them being sent on to the Supreme Court, including Yick Wo v. Hopkins in San Francisco, which required permits for the operation of laundries- all 80 white applicants were permitted and none of the 200 Chinese applicants were permitted. United States v. Wong Kim Ark was another case which cemented a key point in US immigration- Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States to two Chinese parents who, due to their being Chinese at a time when Chinese individuals could not become naturalized Citizens, unlike immigrants from other areas. Ark left to visit family in China and was denied reentry, so he took his case to the courts, which established an important precedent for the 14th amendment, which in part grants US citizenship to those born in the United States, even if their parents are not legal citizens. A big part of why this ruling was not challenged was because it would greatly complicate citizenship for a large portion of the population, including those with parents born in Europe.
More research is needed to continue expanding the narrative on the early Chinese community in Humboldt County, and I hope that our current exhibit, this blog post, and a forthcoming article in the Humboldt Historian help to encourage that research and inspire others to look more deeply into the story.
RSS Feed