The Long Shadow of Martial Law
A lawsuit reaches the district court regarding the 1886 Seattle anti-Chinese riots and the suspension of civil rights.
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.
The celebrated case of J.D. Hannigan vs. W.C. Squire and John Gibbon for $25,000 damages for declaring martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Seattle from February 8 to 12, 1886, was brought down in the district court today by the filing of an answer by the attorneys for Squire. The suit grew out of the riot-chatter raids in 1886. The defendant Squire was governor and commander in chief of the militia of the territory. He assumed legal command of the city and enforced martial law and, it is alleged, in the court documents, prevented the issuance of writs of habeas corpus between the dates above mentioned. Brigadier General John Gibbon was ordered by the President to report with the Fourteenth infantry U.S.A. for duty under the governor and did so on February 16. Hannigan was arrested during this time as a rioter, and kept in jail thirteen days, as he claims, illegally and unlawfully. Therefore, he has brought suit to recover $25,000 from Governor Squire and General Gibbon.
“Hannigan was arrested during this time as a rioter, and kept in jail thirteen days, as he claims, illegally and unlawfully.”
This case reflects the constitutional crisis triggered by the 1886 anti-Chinese expulsion riots in Seattle. It remains a foundational moment in Washington's history regarding the tension between executive power during civil unrest and the protection of civil liberties.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.