The Exclusionist Debate in 1885 Seattle
An editorial from the Post-Intelligencer outlines the legal arguments used to justify the early efforts to bar Chinese residents from owning land in Washington Territory.
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 Chronicle takes W. H. W. and the Post-Intelligencer to task for proposing certain legislation on the Chinese question. If the Chronicle had displayed as much care in reading up on the legal questions involved as it displays in defense of its pet monopolies whenever their interests are touched, it would have found that the propositions of W. H. W. in the Post-Intelligencer are not 'bomb,' but good sense and sound law. There is nothing in the existing treaty with China to prevent such legislation. The modified treaty provides that Chinese within the United States shall enjoy the 'same rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions in respect to travel and residence as those enjoyed by citizens of the most favored nation.' There is nothing in the proposed legislation that interferes with any right 'in respect to travel and residence.' It is the right of every state in this Union to say who may and who may not hold real estate within its borders, and some of the states, notably New York, have exercised that right by saying that aliens shall not hold real estate. What, then, is to prevent the Legislature of this Territory from enacting that no alien shall hold real property in this Territory? What is there even to prevent the Legislature from prohibiting only Chinese aliens from acquiring title to such property? Certainly there is nothing in the treaty to prevent it.
“It is the right of every State in this Union to say who may and who may not hold real estate within its borders.”
This 1885 editorial highlights the legalistic framing used to disenfranchise Chinese laborers during a period of intense xenophobia in the Pacific Northwest. Today, these arguments regarding who has the right to own land and participate in local economies resonate deeply as Seattle grapples with modern housing inequality and the legacies of exclusionary policies.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.