The Street Hawker's Stand Against Discriminatory Laws
When a Chinese produce seller was arrested for violating city peddling ordinances, he challenged the legality of a law targeting his livelihood all the way to the Chief Justice's chambers.
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.
When Ah Toot, the Chinese vegetable peddler, was taken before Judge Lyon on a charge of violating the premises of the peddler and huckster ordinance, which prohibits all persons from peddling within the city limits except those who are citizens of the United States, or who have declared their intention to become citizens, he pleaded guilty. At the request of his attorney, he went to jail in order that he might be taken before Chief Justice Greene, on a writ of habeas corpus, where the validity or invalidity of the above-mentioned ordinance could be tested. The writ was issued, and the defendant, Ah Toot, taken into Judge Greene's chambers, where the case was argued. Mr. Gilman, of the firm of Gilman & Hanford, appeared for the city. Mr. Gilman held that the ordinance proposed discrimination, while the Burlingame treaty expressly provides that the subjects of that country shall have the same protection under the law to life, liberty, and property, as is accorded to the citizens of the most favored nation; and also that under the articles of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, all discrimination is expressly prohibited. Mr. Hanford took the ground that the city had as much right to license peddlers as it has to license saloon keepers, and held that if Congress has passed laws, as it has done, to the effect that no steamboat license shall be granted to any person in the United States who is not a bona fide citizen of this country, the City Council can go far enough to say that no one shall be permitted to peddle around the streets from house to house. He further stated that there was nothing in the ordinance to prevent a Chinaman from raising or growing vegetables, but he must either sell them at his place, or to dealers in town, and not peddle from house to house. At the conclusion of the arguments, the Judge stated that he would admit the defendant to bail, and take the remainder of the matter under controversy.
“The Burlingame treaty expressly provides that the subjects of that country shall have the same protection under the law... as is accorded to the citizens of the most favored nation.”
This 1886 case highlights the early use of municipal 'peddling ordinances' as a tool for economic exclusion—a direct precursor to modern debates over street vending permits, food truck zoning, and the regulation of informal labor in rapidly densifying cities like Seattle.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.