Who Counts as a Merchant?
Judge Hanford rules that a Chinese restaurant owner is not a 'merchant' under the law, preventing his re-entry into the United States.
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.
Ah Yow, the Chinese restaurant keeper, held that he was a merchant in the meaning of the law and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from confinement on board the steamer Tacoma and allowing him to land. Judge Hanford has denied the request. His decision states: 'I hold that there is no good reason in law or elsewhere for calling a caterer a merchant. A restaurant is a place where meals are served, and the proprietor caters to the tastes of patrons. A person may be a tradesman, but a restaurant keeper is not a merchant. And I hold that to interpret the statute meaning 'merchant' broad enough to include restaurant keepers and tradesmen, such as cabinetmakers, tailors, and shoemakers—who receive orders and make up materials—is incorrect. Those who follow such callings are workmen, and all Chinese persons who follow such callings are barred from coming to the United States. I hold that a restaurant belongs to the same class and is barred.'
“I hold that there is no good reason in law or elsewhere for calling a caterer a merchant.”
This ruling highlights the aggressive use of the Chinese Exclusion Act to define who was 'useful' enough to be allowed into the country. The rigid legal definitions used to keep laborers out of Seattle directly echo the systemic exclusion faced by immigrant communities for decades.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.