los angeles department of city...

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 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

Yonels

Line

Yonels

Line

Yonels

Line

Yonels

Line

!. "#$%&"$'()*+,--"&.

!"#$%!"#$%&'(%)*"$+%&%%&'$()!$*+&',#'-.%,-%),*.%(,'+%-,*%/&0,*%&1$+*&$",'#!%23"#%#+4$",'%/&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


!"#$%#&'#$(&#$)*&%+$+#,#-+&$-(&)*#).&+*#&)/''#%0/-(1-2&3/4#%&+/&1-(1)$+#&+*$+&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?


✔ ✔

✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

✔ ✔

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.


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.

�

��


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.


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.


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


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.


5 of 5 9/26/2016 10:47 PM

This political cartoon published in 1882 illustrates the hypocrisy of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

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.



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.



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, 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, 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)