State Supreme Court Overrules Racist Decision That Stood For 125 Years

The California Supreme Court’s opinion in re Hong Yen Chang on Admission is less than nine pages long, and its first line offers little hint of the brutal and callous racism the opinion seeks to remedy. “We grant Hong Yen Chang posthumous admission as an attorney and counselor at law in all courts of the state of California,” the opinion announces, before describing a legacy of state-sponsored bigotry that rivals Jim Crow.

The state of California owes much of its prominence and its prosperity to Chinese laborers. Before a transcontinental railway connected California to the rest of the nation, a trip from America’s east coast to its west took 118 days on a ship that rounded South America and then traveled along the back end of its coast. Once the railway was completed, the same trip took only six days. For the first time in history, Americans from other parts of the nation could easily travel to and from California, and the nation’s west coast could easily conduct commerce with its east.

Much of California’s railways were built by Chinese workers, who performed dangerous tasks under conditions reminiscent of a slave plantation. As I explain in my book, Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted,

“the Central Pacific Railroad hired as many as fourteen thousand Chinese workers to build the first leg of the tracks that would connect America’s two coasts. There, they labored under white foremen who often punished stragglers with the whip. A common task for Chinese crews carving railroad beds into mountainsides was to dangle a single man over ledges, in a basket thousands of feet above the ground, where the man would place a blasting powder charge in the face of the mountain, light the fuse, and pray that his companions pulled him up fast enough to escape death from flying rocks. During the wintertime, these same men would clear up to fifteen feet of snow just to begin each work day. Avalanches were a common cause of death.”

California rewarded the Chinese workers who built their line to the rest of the nation with anti-Chinese laws reminiscent of similar legislation targeting African Americans in the South. As the Chang opinion explains, Chinese nationals living in California paid special taxes and were excluded from certain livelihoods, such as commercial fishing. A “Chinese Police Tax” was enacted “to protect Free White Labor against competition with Chinese Coolie Labor, and to discourage the Immigration of the Chinese into the State of California.” Corporations that employed Chinese workers faced criminal charges.

In 1879, California ratified a constitution that denied voting rights to “any ‘native of China’ alongside any ‘idiot, insane person, or person convicted’ of various crimes.” The new constitution prohibited corporations and government employers from “employ[ing] directly or indirectly, in any capacity, any Chinese or Mongolian.” Another provision instructed the state legislature to discourage Chinese immigration “by all the means within its power.”

To read more, continue to the next page. 


  • David Norbot

    “…denied voting rights to “any…idiot, insane person, or person convicted’ of various crimes…”

    It makes me wonder what the state of our nation would be now, if that were national law.

  • Jack Baynes

    “As I discuss in Injustices, one example of this lobbying was an official message a committee of California state senators delivered to Congress in 1877.”

    Lobbying by sending a letter? How quaint.

    • Alicia

      How else were they to communicate, it was 1877.

      • Jack Baynes

        With money, of course.

        • Alicia

          The letter would still have to accompany the money. It may be ‘quaint’ but it’s how things worked prior to technology.

          • Eirik Nidsleng

            Imagine a bag of money just showing up in congress with no further explanation. Sounds like effective lobbying right there…

  • The concept of a multi-racial society violates every Natural Law for specie preservation. A nation or people that refuses to live by nature’s laws will perish. Laws were made to preserve the folk of a nation. Invasive species have no respect towards a host population. Pity that people today, especially activist “judges”, fail to remember that.

  • Sammy Lewis

    I always find it interesting that racial discrimination is not nor ever has been limited to the South as so many people today would have us believe.

    • The Truth Hurts

      No, not then … however, in the now, it’s more common here in the south. I’ve lived all over the US in the past 46 years and blatant racism and exclusion is nowhere more widespread and a part of daily life than right here in the bible belt.

State Supreme Court Overrules Racist Decision That Stood For 125 Years

by Second Nexus Staff time to read: 4 min
9