The Laundry War: When Seattle Tried to License Away the Chinese

The case of the city vs. Howard, for carrying on the laundry business after the revocation of his license, was argued before Justice Lyon yesterday. Judge Jacobs and Richard Osborne represented the defendant. The position taken by the defendant’s counsel was this: Under our Constitution and system of government, no rights of person or property and no right to carry on or exercise any lawful or innocent trade, occupation, business, profession or employment could be validly or constitutionally made to depend on the discretion of any man or set of men.

The defense utterly denied that the legislature of this Territory had ever granted to the municipality of the city of Seattle the right to demand of persons wishing to carry on the laundry business a license or permit therefor. They asserted that this business stood on the same basis as that of a blacksmith or furniture manufacturer. They maintained that if the inception of the business could be made to depend on the discretion of the Common Council, so could the business of the merchant, tailor, or printer. While it was desirable to rid ourselves of the Chinamen and to discourage their employment by every legitimate means, we could not afford to sacrifice every guarantee of personal liberty and break down all of the safeguards to property rights. The defendant in this action got the certificates of the Fire Board and the Health Officer, yet the Council revoked its consent and refused to assign any reason. The decision of his Honor sustained the position of defendant’s counsel.