The Prosecutor Who Prosecuted Himself: How Aberdeen’s DA Ignored a White Mob’s Attack on Chinese Residents
When a mob drove Aberdeen’s Chinese community out of town and stole $550, the county’s prosecuting attorney charged the victims with libel instead of the perpetrators—sparking a furious editorial defense of civil rights in 1890.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
SIMPLY FACTS.
Regarding Attorney or Attorney for the Chinamen?
Were the editor of the Herald not one of the parties charged by Geo. J. Moody with the felonious crime of burglary, he would not hesitate to express with what force he might command his opinion regarding Mr. Moody's actions in this case. As matters stand, he feels constrained to simply state the facts of the case, and leave it to the public to decide whether or not Geo. J. Moody has lost sight of his capacity as prosecuting attorney for Chehalis county in his great zeal for the Chinamen.
Whether or not Mr. Moody has been as considerate of the good name of these citizens of Chehalis county, who previous to the charge of stealing from a Chinamen brought against them by him, had never had the slightest aspersion cast upon their honor, as he has been of keeping one John Wing, a Chinaman, free from that power of the law that he has been so ready to make against those whose skins were so yellow.
The facts are these: On the night of the 7th of November the Chinamen in Aberdeen were compelled by persons unknown to leave the city, and were taken to Montesano and left on the wharf there. Wing, the head Chinaman, stated to a newspaper reporter that he recognized among those who had compelled him to leave, and who, he stated, robbed him of $550, Capt. S. C. Mitchell, John [Johnson] and F. R. Wall. This statement, based simply upon the word of a Chinaman, was published throughout the United States, having been copied by many papers from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, where it was first published.
This statement was first published on the 9th, and on the 12th the persons named filed in the superior court an affidavit charging John Wing with libel, and produced unimpeachable witnesses, by whom, they claimed, had the prosecuting attorney so acted he might have satisfied himself fully as to the entire innocence of the parties charged. Instead, he did not stir his finger over to examine any evidence available, except such as was furnished by John Wing.
The law required Geo. J. Moody to file an information against John Wing, based upon these affidavits. This he did not do until compelled by the court, on the 20th of November. Before being compelled, he, in open court plead that John Wing might be protected by the court, and said that he had no hesitancy in saying that the affidavits were, in his opinion, nothing more than a malicious conspiracy to intimidate this poor Chinaman.
This statement was deliberately made when the whole field of evidence was open to prove its falsity, had he seen fit to enter it. He said that should the court decide that he must file these informations, still he had not been guilty of negligence in not having done so, as his time had been too much taken up with other public business, and that his not doing so was working no hardship on any one.
We state it as indisputable facts that he found time to make affidavits, file informations, and have issued warrants for the arrest of six citizens of Aberdeen, although he could not find time to file three informations upon the affidavits of three of those citizens. It is working no hardship, in his eyes, that these citizens were resting under the charge of stealing money, and were using every endeavor possible to get him to perform a purely ministerial duty in order that they might at once bring the matter before the superior court, and without a moment's delay show their innocence.
These are facts, everyone of them, and from them the public and the people of Chehalis county may draw their own conclusions.
This 1890 account reveals a stark pattern of civic failure where law enforcement prioritized protecting white property owners over prosecuting violent racial expulsion. The editorial’s outrage at the prosecutor’s selective application of justice mirrors modern debates about police accountability and the protection of marginalized immigrant communities from mob violence.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.