George Hall was arrested and convicted for the 1853 murder of a Chinese immigrant miner in Nevada County, California. The Chinese immigrants who witnessed the murder provided the essential testimony that led to Hall’s conviction. However, Hall appealed the court’s decision, claiming that a Chinese immigrant should not be able to testify against a white man and citing a law that denied black individuals and Indians the right to testify. The case ultimately ended up in the California Supreme Court, where the justices were asked not only to consider the original intent of the law as it applied to Chinese immigrants but also, by default, to deliberate on the status of Chinese immigrants as members of American society. Chief Justice Hugh Murray delivered the majority opinion of the court, which concluded that Chinese immigrants were not entitled to the same rights and privileges as white people and therefore did not have the right to testify against a white man in court.

George Hall was arrested and convicted for the 1853 murder of a Chinese immigrant miner in Nevada County, California. The Chinese immigrants who witnessed the murder provided the essential testimony that led to Hall’s conviction. However, Hall appealed the court’s decision, claiming that a Chinese immigrant should not be able to testify against a white man and citing a law that denied black individuals and Indians the right to testify. The case ultimately ended up in the California Supreme Court, where the justices were asked not only to consider the original intent of the law as it applied to Chinese immigrants but also, by default, to deliberate on the status of Chinese immigrants as members of American society. Chief Justice Hugh Murray delivered the majority opinion of the court, which concluded that Chinese immigrants were not entitled to the same rights and privileges as white people and therefore did not have the right to testify against a white man in court.

After the discovery of gold in California, Chinese immigrants were among countless other immigrant groups who flocked to the gold mines seeking their fortune. Poverty, wars, and oppressive government policies pushed many Chinese families to send their sons looking for economic opportunities abroad. Chinese merchants and entrepreneurs recognized the lucrative potential of moving to California to establish businesses that provided goods and services for Chinese immigrants living and working in the goldfields. By 1852, approximately twenty-five thousand Chinese lived in the state. Initially they were welcomed by politicians and business owners, who saw their presence as a sign of the future wealth and prosperity of the state. Labor recruiters eagerly sought Chinese laborers to work in mining, manufacturing, and agricultural industries.

The initial welcome quickly faded, however. By the early 1850s, the placer deposits had dwindled, and mining became big business. Only those individuals with the capital to purchase heavy equipment and hire laborers to mine for gold were profiting. Companies employed Chinese immigrants partly because they were viewed as especially industrious workers and partly because they could pay them lower wages than white workers. Exasperated by limited job opportunities, white workingmen looked for scapegoats. Economic frustrations combined with rising racial tensions led to a backlash against foreign miners. This backlash manifested itself in the form of laws such as the Foreign Miner’s Tax, which sought to force the Chinese from the mining camps by imposing a tax on them. Further oppressive laws followed. In some cases, tensions culminated in outright violence through efforts to forcibly remove Chinese immigrants from California towns and physical attacks on individual Chinese miners.

In 1853, George Hall and two other white men attempted to assault and rob a Chinese gold miner living and working along the Bear River in Nevada County, California. Ling Sing, another Chinese miner in the camp, was coming to the aid of his neighbor when Hall shot and killed him. Hall was promptly arrested and taken to court. The testimony of three Chinese witnesses led to Hall’s conviction. The judge sentenced Hall to death by hanging. However, Hall challenged the conviction on the grounds that section 14 of California’s Criminal Proceedings Act prohibited the testimony of “blacks, mulatto persons, or Indians” against a white person, insisting that the ban also extended to the Chinese. Hall appealed his case all the way to the California Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Hugh C. Murray, who delivered the majority opinion for the court in the case of People v. Hall, had a rather short but infamous career in law. Murray was born in Saint Louis, Missouri, in 1825. He was raised in Illinois and began to study law there in the 1840s. Murray served for a brief time as a second lieutenant in the United States infantry during the war with Mexico. Shortly after his admittance to the bar, he traveled to California to practice law. Murray reached San Francisco during the height of the gold rush in 1849 and found ample opportunities for personal and professional growth. The social connections he forged in San Francisco helped to build his career. Before long, he was serving as a justice of the Superior Court of San Francisco.

Murray continued his meteoric rise. In 1851, he was appointed to the State Supreme Court. The following year, he became chief justice after the resignation of H. A. Lyons. Murray was only twenty-seven years old when he became chief justice of the California Supreme Court and only twenty-nine years old when he rendered the decision in Hall, one of his most infamous decisions and the case for which he is perhaps most well known. Murray’s career was cut short by consumption, which claimed his life in 1857.

Murray had a reputation for nativism as a member of the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic American Party (also referred to as the Know-Nothing Party). This organization, composed primarily of Anglo-American Protestants, gained support and influence in the 1850s following a rapid increase in immigration to the United States. The gold rush only exacerbated the party’s fears of an immigrant invasion. The party platform sought to limit immigration and naturalization, especially of Germans and Irish, who were perceived as more loyal to the Catholic Church and the Pope than to democratic values. The American Party further sought to inhibit the power and political influence of all foreigners already living in the United States, including the Chinese. Murray’s American Party background and his nativist sentiments are clearly reflected in the Hall decision. His zeal for protecting white Americans from the potential harmful influences of inferior races is clear in the language of the majority opinion.

Mr. Ch. J. MURRAY delivered the opinion of the Court, Mr. J. HEYDENFELDT concurred.

The appellant, a free white citizen of this State, was convicted of murder upon the testimony of Chinese witnesses.

The point involved in this case, is the admissibility of such evidence.

The 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases, provides that no Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action or proceeding in which a White person is a party.

The 14th section of the Act of April 16th, 1850, regulating Criminal Proceedings, provides that “No Black or Mulatto person, or Indian, shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man.”

The true point, at which we are anxious to arrive, is the legal signification of the words, “Black, Mulatto Indian and White person,” and whether the Legislature adopted them as generic terms, or intended to limit their application to specific types of the human species.

Before considering this question, it is proper to remark the difference between the two sections of our Statute, already quoted, the latter being more broad and comprehensive in its exclusion, by use of the word “Black,” instead of Negro.

Conceding, however, for the present, that the word “Black,” as used in the 14th section, and “Negro,” in 394th, are convertible terms, and that the former was intended to include the latter, let us proceed to inquire who are excluded from testifying as witnesses under the term “Indian.”

When Columbus first landed upon the shores of this continent, in his attempt to discover a western passage to the Indies, he imagined that he had accomplished the object of his expedition, and that the Island of San Salvador was one of those Islands of the Chinese sea, lying near the extremity of India, which had been described by navigators

Acting upon this hypothesis, and also perhaps from the similarity of features and physical conformation, he gave to the Islanders the name of Indians, which appellation was universally adopted, and extended to the aboriginals of the New World, as well as of Asia.

From that time, down to a very recent period, the American Indians and the Mongolian, or Asiatic, were regarded as the same type of the human species.

In order to arrive at a correct understanding of the intention of our Legislature, it will be necessary to go back to the early history of legislation on this subject, our Statute being only a transcript of those of older States.

At the period from which this legislation dates, those portions of Asia which include India proper, the Eastern Archipelago, and the countries washed by the Chinese waters, as far as then known, were denominated the Indies, from which the inhabitants had derived the generic name of Indians.

Ethnology, at that time, was unknown as a distinct science, or if known, had not reached that high point of perfection which it has since attained by the scientific inquiries and discoveries of the master minds of the last half century. Few speculations had been made with regard to the moral or physical differences between the different races of mankind. These were general in their character, and limited to those visible and palpable variations which could not escape the attention of the most common observer.

The general, or perhaps universal opinion of that day was, that there were but three distinct types of the human species, which, in their turn, were subdivided into varieties or tribes. This opinion is still held by many scientific writers, and is supported by Cuvier, one of the most eminent naturalists of modern times.

Many ingenious speculations have been resorted to for the purpose of sustaining this opinion. It has been supposed, and not without plausibility, that this continent was first peopled by Asiatics, who crossed Behring’s Straits, and from thence found their way down to the more fruitful climates of Mexico and South America. Almost every tribe has some tradition of coming from the North, and many of them, that their ancestors came from some remote country beyond the ocean.

From the eastern portions of Kamtschatka, the Aleutian Islands form a long and continuous group, extending eastward to that portion of the North American Continent inhabited by the Esquimaux. They appear to be a continuation of the lofty volcanic ranges which traverse the two continents, and are inhabited by a race who resemble, in a remarkable degree, in language and appearance, both the inhabitants of Kamtschatka (who are admitted to be of the Mongolian type,) and the Esquimaux, who again, in turn, resemble other tribes of American Indians. The similarity of the skull and pelvis, and the general configuration of the two races; the remarkable resemblance in eyes, beard, hair, and other peculiarities, together with the contiguity of the two Continents, might well have led to the belief that this country was first peopled by the Asiatics, and that the difference between the different tribes and the parent stock was such as would necessarily arise from the circumstances of climate, pursuits, and other physical causes, and was no greater than that existing between the Arab and the European, both of whom were supposed to belong to the Caucasian race.

Although the discoveries of eminent Archeologists, and the researches of modern Geologists, have given to this Continent an antiquity of thousands of years anterior to the evidence of man’s existence, and the light of modern science may have shown conclusively that it was not peopled by the inhabitants of Asia, but that the Aborigines are a distinct type, and as such claim a distinct origin, still, this would not, in any degree, alter the meaning of the term, and render that specific which was before generic.

We have adverted to these speculations for the purpose of showing that the name of Indian, from the time of Columbus to the present day, has been used to designate, not alone the North American Indian, but the whole of the Mongolian race, and that the name, though first applied probably through mistake, was afterwards continued as appropriate on account of the supposed common origin.

That this was the common opinion in the early history of American legislation, cannot be disputed, and, therefore, all legislation upon the subject must have borne relation to that opinion.

Can, then, the use of the word “Indian,” because at the present day it may be sometimes regarded as a specific, and not as a generic term, alter this conclusion? We think not; because at the origin of the legislation we are considering, it was used and admitted in its common and ordinary acceptation, as a generic term, distinguishing the great Mongolian race, and as such, its meaning then became fixed by law, and in construing Statutes the legal meaning of words must be preserved.

Again: the words of the Act must be construed in pari materia. It will not be disputed that “White” and “Negro,” are generic terms, and refer to two of the great types of mankind. If these, as well as the word “Indian,” are not to be regarded as generic terms, including the two great races which they were intended to designate, but only specific, and applying to those Whites and Negroes who were inhabitants of this Continent at the time of the passage of the Act, the most anomalous consequences would ensue. The European white man who comes here would not be shielded from the testimony of the degraded and demoralized caste, while the Negro, fresh from the coast of Africa, or the Indian of Patagonia, the Kanaka, South Sea Islander, or New Hollander, would be admitted, upon their arrival, to testify against white citizens in our courts of law.

To argue such a proposition would be an insult to the good sense of the Legislature.

The evident intention of the Act was to throw around the citizen a protection for life and property, which could only be secured by removing him above the corrupting influences of degraded castes.

It can hardly be supposed that any Legislature would attempt this by excluding domestic Negroes and Indians, who not unfrequently have correct notions of their obligations to society, and turning loose upon the community the more degraded tribes of the same species, who have nothing in common with us, in language, country or laws.

We have, thus far, considered this subject on the hypothesis that the 14th section of the Act Regulating Criminal Proceedings, and the 394th section of the Practice Act, were the same.

As before remarked, there is a wide difference between the two. The word “Black” may include all Negroes, but the term “Negro” does not include all Black persons.

By the use of this term in this connection, we understand it to mean the opposite of “White,” and that it should be taken as contradistinguished from all White persons.

In using the words, “No Black, or Mulatto person, or Indian shall be allowed to give evidence for or against a White person,” the Legislature, if any intention can be ascribed to it, adopted the most comprehensive terms to embrace every known class or shade of color, as the apparent design was to protect the White person from the influence of all testimony other than that of persons of the same caste. The use of these terms must, by every sound rule of construction, exclude every one who is not of white blood.

The Act of Congress in defining what description of aliens may become naturalized citizens, provides that every “free white citizen,”. In speaking of this subject, Chancellor Kent says, that “the Act confines the description to “white” citizens, and that it is a matter of doubt, whether, under this provision, any of the tawny races of Asia can be admitted to the privileges of citizenship.” 2 Kent’s Com. 72.

We are not disposed to leave this question in any doubt. The word “White” has a distinct signification, which ex vi termini, excludes black, yellow, and all other colors. It will be observed, by reference to the first section of the second article of the Constitution of this State, that none but white males can become electors, except in the case of Indians, who may be admitted by special Act of the Legislature. On examination of the constitutional debates, it will be found that not a little difficulty existed in selecting these precise words, which were finally agreed upon as the most comprehensive that could be suggested to exclude all inferior races.

If the term “White,” as used in the Constitution, was not understood in its generic sense as including the Caucasian race, and necessarily excluding all others, where was the necessity of providing for the admission of Indians to the privilege of voting, by special legislation?

We are of the opinion that the words “White,” “Negro,” “Mulatto,” “Indian,” and “Black person,” wherever they occur in our Constitution and laws, must be taken in their generic sense, and that, even admitting the Indian of this Continent is not of the Mongolian type, that the words “Black person,” in the 14th section must be taken as contradistinguished from White, and necessarily excludes all races other than the Caucasian.

We have carefully considered all the consequences resulting from a different rule of construction, and are satisfied that even in a doubtful case we would be impelled to this decision on grounds of public policy.

The same rule which would admit them to testify would admit them to all the equal rights of citizenship, and we might soon see them at the polls, in the jury box, upon the bench, and in our legislative halls.

This is not a speculation which exists in the excited and over-heated imagination of the patriot and statesman, but it is an actual and present danger.

The anomalous spectacle of a distinct people, living in our community, recognizing no laws of this State except through necessity, bringing with them their prejudices and national feuds, in which they indulge in open violation of law; whose mendacity is proverbial; a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation; between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference, is now presented, and for them is claimed, not only the right to swear away the life of a citizen, but the further privilege of participating with us in administering the affairs of our Government.

These facts were before the Legislature that framed this Act, and have been known as matters of public history to every subsequent Legislature.

There can be no doubt as to the intention of the Legislature, and that if it had ever been anticipated that this class of people were not embraced in the prohibition, then such specific words would have been employed as would have put the matter beyond any possible controversy.

For these reasons, we are of opinion that the testimony was inadmissible. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Mr. Justice WELLS dissented, as follows:

From the opinion of the Chief Justice, I must most respectfully dissent.

anomalous spectacle: strange sight

conformation: structure, appearance

convertible: interchangeable

degraded: inferior, pushed to a lower position

demoralized: morally corrupt

ex vi termini: by the force of the term

ingenious speculations: clever assumptions

mendacity: deceitfulness

Mongolian: an outdated term referring to all individuals of Asian descent, specifically Chinese

pari material: two laws analyzed together due to their similarity

signification: meaning, importance

The majority opinion handed down by the California Supreme Court in the case of People v. Hall reflected not only the attempt of the court to provide a clear definition of racial categories in order to protect the interests of the white race but also reveals the racial anxieties and virulent anti-Chinese hostilities that existed in the United States at the time. The bulk of the testimony in the case against George Hall was provided by Chinese witnesses. The question before the court was whether or not such testimony should be admissible given that it was provided by nonwhite individuals. Section 14 of California’s Criminal Proceedings Act, an 1850 act of the legislature that regulated criminal proceedings, had already established that “no Black or Mulatto person, or Indian,” would be allowed to testify against a white man in a court of law. Since the law never specifically excluded the testimony of a Chinese individual, the justices sought to determine whether or not the law was intended to apply to the Chinese as well. Thus, they struggled first to define what the creators of the law intended by the terms black, white, and Indian. Second, they reflected on the implications of expanding rights and political power to nonwhite races. The text of the majority opinion clearly reflects the racial tensions and fears of the era and provides insight into the history of American race relations.

In the first section of the majority opinion, Murray turned to historical and scientific evidence to help deconstruct the meanings behind the racial categories defined by the 1850 law. Murray begins by making the argument that since the time of Columbus’s first contact with the native people of San Salvador, the term Indian historically has been used to imply American Indians as well as Asians. Murray points out that Columbus, who was attempting to locate a passage to the Indies, assumed that the island was located in the Chinese sea near India and that its inhabitants were of Asian descent, and so he referred to the island’s native people as Indians. Although Columbus’s assumption was incorrect, the term Indian was henceforth applied generically to both Asians and American Indians.

Murray then moves to provide scientific evidence to buttress his argument. He claims that anthropological theories about the Asian origins of the ancestors of American Indians further seemed to validate the association between the two groups. Murray summarizes the ideas of ethnologists who had previously concluded that American Indian groups had originally migrated across the Bering Strait into North America. Although he admits that this theory had recently been challenged, Murray concludes that historical and scientific evidence confirms that “the name of Indian, from the time of Columbus to the present day, has been used to designate, not alone the North American Indian, but the whole of the Mongolian race.”

Murray further defines the intent behind the use of the words black and white in the original 1850 legislation. The court argues the broadest definition of the terms. The word black is defined as “the opposite of ‘white.’” Thus the court insists that the specific phrasing of the original legislation that denied any “Black or Mulatto person, or Indian,” from testifying against a white person was intended “to embrace every known class or shade of color.” Murray therefore concludes that the intent of the use of the term Indian in the law prohibiting Indians from testifying against white individuals was anticipated to apply to the Chinese as well. His intent here is to validate historically and scientifically the notion that white people have always viewed Chinese people as nonwhite and therefore not entitled to the same rights and privileges as white people.

Clearly underlying the court’s decision are the racial anxieties at play in American society at the time. An influx of immigrants from around the world contributed to heightened nativist sentiments. Heated discussions over the future of slavery and the question of the status of American Indians in American society raged in the political arena, and sectional tensions threatened to divide the nation. The case of People v. Hall reflected an overall concern about the future status of white people in the United States. The opinion clearly suggests that the court is concerned not only with protecting white people from the potentially damning testimony of untrustworthy “others” but also about the broader, potentially devastating implications of the decision to allow nonwhite individuals to testify in a court of law. Murray argues, for instance, that if the court allowed groups other than white people to testify in court, they might also be allowed the right to vote, serve on a jury, or gain positions of political power.

The potential of these groups to gain equal rights as citizens is imagined as a great threat to all of American society, in part because of the perception that these groups represented “inferior races.” Murray argues,

The anomalous spectacle of a distinct people, living in our community… whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development… differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation: between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference… is now presented, and for them is claimed, not only the right to swear away the life of a citizen, but the further privilege of participating with us in administering the affairs of our Government.

Here, Murray clearly outlines the type of scientific racism implicit in his overarching argument, which justifies racist laws by suggesting that anthropology has delineated the distinctions between the races and ordered them hierarchically. He uses this pseudoscientific theory to legitimize his decision to deny these groups access to the exercise of full social and political equality, arguing that the “scientifically” proven racial inferiority of certain groups necessitates the interpretation of laws to shield the superior race from the potential harm of too much power in the hands of intellectually incapable races. Murray’s fear was that allowing nonwhite groups to testify against white people would open the door to allowing these same groups to gain “equal rights of citizenship” and participate in the administration of “the affairs of our government.”

The immediate implication of the court’s decision was the reversal of Hall’s conviction. Hall literally got away with murder because the testimony of the three Chinese witnesses had to be disregarded. The broader implication was effectively to make the Chinese a target. The ruling itself seemed to encourage acts of violence against the Chinese, with perpetrators fully aware that their actions would likely go unpunished. Denied equal protection under the law, the Chinese immigrant community responded with outrage at the court’s decision. They objected to being categorized the same as other racial groups. Letters of protest sent to the governor pointed out the racism of the majority opinion and demanded equal protection of the law. A letter written by Lai Chun-Chuen representing the Chinese merchants in San Francisco countered anti-Chinese arguments that labeled the Chinese as primitive and barbaric. Lai argued that the history of Chinese civilization pointed to the superiority of the Chinese over less developed races such as black people and Indians. Although grounded in some of the same racialized rhetoric espoused by Murray and the court, the argument effectively countered stereotypes of the Chinese as less civilized then Caucasians. This attempt to distance themselves from black people and Indians and more closely associate themselves with white people would prove to be a common and somewhat successful tactic of the Chinese American community when challenging future racist laws. Similarly, the merchant class recognized an advantage in pointing out their class status and distancing themselves from common laborers as a means of arguing against discriminatory laws and for greater political power in the years to come.

Despite the ruling in People v. Hall, the Chinese immigrant community continued to take their cases before the court in hopes of obtaining justice. Their efforts sometimes proved successful, depending in large part on the judge, the jury, and the acumen of their lawyers. Calling upon an extensive transnational network of support, Chinese immigrants relied on family, friends, and kinship and district organizations to protect their rights and freedoms. They persisted in their protests and efforts to reverse discriminatory laws. White allies, including big business leaders and Christian missionaries who supported Chinese immigration, often came to the aid of the Chinese and spoke out publicly on their behalf. Reverend William Speer, a Presbyterian missionary, publicly insisted that the Hall decision violated principles of democracy, Christianity, and common humanity. The political influence of white community leaders like Speer helped gain some degree of public support for the Chinese cause.

Although People v. Hall would be effectively overturned by federal civil rights legislation in the 1870s, by that point the anti-Chinese movement on the Pacific coast was gaining significant political momentum. Anti-Chinese lobbyists would succeed in lobbying Congress to pass significant measures to curb Chinese immigration and ultimately exclude Chinese laborers, culminating in the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Chinese people living in the United States suffered countless acts of violence in a concerted effort to drive them out of towns throughout the West Coast. Even large urban ethnic enclaves provided limited protection against anti-Chinese hostilities. San Francisco’s Chinese community fought extensive legal battles against efforts to drive them from certain industries, segregate their children in the schools, and prevent their families from joining them in the United States. The era of anti-Chinese exclusion and hostility continued well into the twentieth century. It was not until China became a US ally in World War II that Chinese exclusion as an immigration policy was repealed. Even then, the institutionalized discrimination established substantial barriers to social, political, and economic progress that would require decades to overcome.

The case of People v. Hall highlights not only the extent of the racial tensions between Chinese immigrants and white miners but also the ways in which the judicial branch established a racialized system of justice that privileged white persons above all other groups. Justice Murray’s opinion in People v. Hall echoed the racist rhetoric of the era and reflected larger tensions at play in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century as the nation struggled to come to terms with who would be allowed access to citizenship. Murray’s writing reflects a common attitude held by white American nativists, who feared that the influx of large numbers of “inferior” classes of foreigners would lead to the ultimate downfall of the nation. Although it is clear that not all white Americans shared in this viewpoint, the political power exerted by individuals of Murray’s status had far-reaching implications. The justices of the California Supreme Court had the power to validate discriminatory laws and extend the application of other laws, which ultimately codified racist sentiments into the US legal system, thus making the task of battling racism and injustice even more difficult for the generations of Chinese Americans that followed.

• Almaguer, Tomas. “‘They Can Be Hired in Masses; They Can Be Managed and Controlled Like Unthinking Slaves.’”Race and Racialization: Essential Readings. Ed. Tania Das Gupta et al. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’, 2007. 217–31. Print.
• Camp, Edgar Whittlesey. “Hugh C. Murray: California’s Youngest Chief Justice.”California Historical Society Quarterly 20.4 (1941): 365–73. Print.
• Daniels, Roger.Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850. Seattle: U of Washington P, 1988. Print.
• Limerick, Patricia Nelson.The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West. New York: Norton, 1987. Print.
• McClain, Charles J.In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America. Berkeley: U of California P, 1994. Print.
• Pfaelzer, Jean.Driven Out: The Forgotten War against Chinese Americans. New York: Random, 2007. Print.
• Rawls, James J., and Walton Bean.California: An Interpretive History. 9th ed. Boston: McGraw, 2008. Print.
• Aarim-Heriot, N.Chinese Immigrants, African Americans; Racial Anxiety in the United States, 1848–82. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2006. Print.
• Chan, Sucheng.Asian Americans: An Interpretive History. New York: Twayne, 1991. Print.
• Lee, Erika.At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2007. Print.
• Sandmeyer, Elmer Clarence.The Anti-Chinese Movement in California. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1991. Print.
• Takaki, Ronald.A History of Asian Americans: Strangers from a Different Shore. Boston: Little, 1998. Print.
• Yung, J., G. H. Chang, and H. M. Lai, eds.Chinese American Voices: From the Gold Rush to the Present. Berkeley: U of California P, 2006. Print.