Los Angeles Department of City Planning RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Home , Knights of Labor, Rock Springs massacre

CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION CASE NO.: CHC-2016-3731-HCM ENV-2016-3732-CE

HEARING DATE: October 20, 2016 Location: 6111 North Monterey Road; 6112 North TIME: 10:00 AM Toltec Way; 6117 North Monterey Road PLACE : City Hall, Room 1010 Council District: 14 200 N. Spring Street Community Plan Area: Northeast Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90012 Area Planning Commission: East Los Angeles Neighborhood Council: Arroyo Seco Legal Description: Oak Hill Park Tract, Block 2, Lots 28-29

PROJECT: Historic-Cultural Monument Application for the LEE RESIDENCE

REQUEST: Declare the property a Historic-Cultural Monument

OWNER: CMB Developers, Inc. Attn: Ilanit Maghen 1080 Everett Place Los Angeles, CA 90026-4413

APPLICANT: Highland Park Heritage Trust P.O. Box 50894 Highland Park, CA 90004

PREPARERS: Charles J. Fisher and Jonathan Silberman Highland Park Heritage Trust 140 S. Avenue 57 Highland Park, CA 90042

RECOMMENDATION That the Cultural Heritage Commission:

1. Take the property under consideration as a Historic-Cultural Monument per Los Angeles Administrative Code Chapter 9, Division 22, Article 1, Section 22.171.10 because the application and accompanying photo documentation suggest the submittal warrants further investigation.

2. Adopt the report findings.

VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP Director of PlanningN1907

[SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE] [SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE]

Ken Bernstein, AICP, Manager Lambert M. Giessinger, Preservation Architect Office of Historic Resources Office of Historic Resources

[SIGNED ORIGINAL IN FILE]

Melissa Jones, Planning Assistant Office of Historic Resources

Attachments: Historic-Cultural Monument Application CHC-2016-3731-HCM 6111 North Monterey Road; 6112 North Toltec Way; 6117 North Monterey Road Page 2 of 2

SUMMARY

The 1938 Lee Residence is a two-story, East Asian Eclectic single-family dwelling with a detached two car garage located at 6111 North Monterey Road between Hardison Way and South Avenue 60 in the Hermon Community. It was constructed by Foss Construction Company for Edgar K. Lee and his family. Edgar Lee (originally Coon Lin Lee) was born in China in 1896 and immigrated to the United States in 1912. Shortly after, in 1917, Lee married an American woman, Alice Stuart, with whom he raised three children.

East Asian Eclectic architecture, a derivative and referential style that borrowed forms and ornament directly from ancient buildings in East Asia, emerged as part of the larger Exotic Revival trend in Los Angeles in the 1920s and proliferated on a large (if geographically isolated) scale with the construction of Los Angeles’ New Chinatown in 1938. East Asian communities continued to use the style to define neighborhoods with ethnic associations.

The Lee Residence retains many of its original features including multi-lite bay and steel casement windows, decorative half-timbering, a rounded, recessed entryway, decorative terracotta grilles, carved rafter tails, a clay tile roof, and sloped roof corners. Square in plan, the dwelling is clad in textured stucco and has a hipped roof with a distinctive decorative detail at its peak. On the rear façade, there is a one-story enclosed living space with a roof deck.

The exterior of the house is mostly intact. The limited alterations include the construction of an addition along the south façade, a pool built in 1980, and recent partial removal of the roof.

The Lee Residence was identified in the draft findings of the citywide historic resources survey, SurveyLA, as eligible for designation at the state and local levels as an excellent example of East Asian Eclectic architecture.

CRITERIA

The criterion is the Cultural Heritage Ordinance which defines a historical or cultural monument as any site (including significant trees or other plant life located thereon) building or structure of particular historic or cultural significance to the City of Los Angeles, such as historic structures or sites in which the broad cultural, economic, or social history of the nation, State or community is reflected or exemplified, or which are identified with historic personages or with important events in the main currents of national, State or local history or which embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period style or method of construction, or a notable work of a master builder, designer or architect whose individual genius influenced his age.

FINDINGS

Based on the facts set forth in the summary and application, the Commission determines that the application is complete and that the property may be significant enough to warrant further investigation as a potential Historic-Cultural Monument. CITY OF LOS ANGELES Office of Historic Resources/Cultural Heritage Commission HISTORIC-CULTURAL MONUMENT NOMINATION FORM

1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION

Proposed Monument Name:

Street Address: Zip: Council District:

Range of Addresses on Property: Community Name:

Assessor Parcel Number: Tract: Block: Lot:

Proposed Monument Site/ Natural Building Structure Object Property Type: Open Space Feature

2. CONSTRUCTION HISTORY & CONDITION Year Built: Factual Estimated Threatened?:

Architect/Designer: Contractor:

Original Use: Present Use:

Is the Proposed Monument on its Original Site?: Yes No Unknown If "No," where?:

3. STYLE & MATERIALS

Architectural Style: Stories:tories: Plan Shape: FEATURE PRIMARY SECONDARY Type: Type: CONSTRUCTION Cladding Material: Cladding Material:

Type: Type: ROOF Material: Material:

Type: Type: WINDOWS Material: Material:

Style: Style: ENTRY Material: Material:

4. HISTORIC-CULTURAL MONUMENT CRITERIA The proposed monument exemplifies the following Cultural Heritage Ordinance Criteria (Section 22.171.7): Reflects the broad cultural, economic, or social history of the nation, state or community

Is identified with historic personage(s) or with important events in the main currents of national, state, or local history Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural-type specimen, inherently valuable for study of a period, style or method of construction A notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius influenced his or her age

1 UPDATED MARCH 2014 !"#%&'%(&)%*+,-(-) &``1HV%Q`%314 Q`1H%7V4Q%`HV4L!%C %`:C%3V`1 :$V%!QII1441QJ M@=2RL@ORO!2LA!%?RK?[K2 +&?"+*#"&+%'&7?

. "#$%&"$'()*+--"& !1# %R: V%:JR%1`1 V%:%G`1V`)RV*H`1] 1QJ%Q`%1Q`@%RQJV%`Q`%I:=Q`%:C V`: 1QJ#8%2.1#%#VH 1QJ%I:7%:C#Q%GV%HQI]CV VR%QJ%:% #V]:`: V%RQH%IVJ 8%%:V%#%`V% Q%1JHC%RV%HQ]1V#%Q`%G%1CR1J$%]V`I1 #%1J% .V%JQI1J: 1QJ%]:H@V %^#VV%!VH 1QJ( 8(=:?@22A!_8"

8% 1980 Swimming pool constructed at rear of property.

8 %'+$')2*3'+$(&'4*&%+(&4%*'5%)$'6'4"$'()*^@`%@JQ1J_

!1# VR%1J% .V%K: 1QJ:C%LV$1# V`%Q`%M1# Q`1H%NC:HV#%

!1# VR%1J% .V%O:C1`Q`J1:%LV$1# V`%Q`%M1# Q`1H:C%LV#Q%`HV#%

PQ`I:CC7%RV V`I1JVR%VC1$1GCV%`Q`% .V%K: 1QJ:C%:JRLQ`%O:C1`Q`J1:%LV$1# V`#%

!QJ `1G% 1J$*`V: %`V* !QH: VR%1J%:%M1# Q`1H%N`V#V`0: 1QJ%R0V`C:7%QJV%^MNR_% .QJRHQJ `1G% 1J$*`V: %`V"

TV V`I1JVR%VC1$1GCV%`Q`%J: 1QJ:C5%# : V5%Q`%CQH:C%C:JRI:`@% Survey LA (per ARG) ✔ Survey Name(s): # : %#%G7%:%.1# Q`1H%`V#Q%`HV#%#%`0V7^#_%

R .V`%.1# Q`1H:C'Q`'H%C %`:C%`V#Q%`HV%RV#1$J: 1QJ^#_7%

8 &'$$%)*+$"$%-%)$+

#.1&"&VH 1QJ":CCQ1&"7Q%" Q"R1#H%##&: &CVJ$ ." .V"&1$J1`1H:JHV"Q`" .V"]`Q]Q&VR"IQJ%IVJ ":JR"1.7"1 "&.Q%CR"GV"JQI1J: VR" :&":"81& Q`1HR:%C %`:C";QJ%IVJ 8""#7]V"7Q%`"`V&]QJ&V&"QJ":"&V]:`: V"RQH%IVJ ":JR": :H."&.VV &" Q" .V"G:H@"Q`" .1&" `Q`I8"

"8% 9`Q]Q=VR*-QJ%IVJ *5V=H`1] 1QJ*T*TV#H`1GV% .V%]`Q]Q#VR%IQJ%IVJ ;#%].7#1H:C%H.:`:H V`1# 1H#%:JR `VC: 1QJ#.1]% Q%1 #%#%``Q%JR1J$%VJ01`QJIVJ 8%%@RVJ 1`7%:JR%RV#H`1GV%:J7%H.:`:H V`RRV`1J1J$%VCVIVJ #5% # `%H %`V#5%1J V`1Q`%#]:HV#5%Q`%C:JR#H:]V%`V: %`V#8

G8% + : VIVJ *Q`*+1$J1`1H:JHV*T*ARR`V##% .V%]`Q]Q#VR%IQJ%IVJ ;#%.1# Q`1H5%H%C %`:C5%:JRLQ`%:`H.1 VH %`:C #1$J1`1H:JHV%G7%R1#H%##1J$%.Q1%1 %#: 1#`1V#% .V%MO?%H`1 V`1:%#VCVH VR%1J%=VH 1QJ%'^QJ' .V']`V01Q%1']:$V_8%% Q%%I%# %#%]]Q` %7Q%`%:`$%IVJ %11 .%#%G# :J 1:C'V01RVJHV!:JR!:J:C7'1'8

2 UPDATED MARCH 2014 !"#%&'%(&)%*+,-(-) &``1HV%Q`%314 Q`1H%7V4Q%`HV4L!%C %`:C%3V`1 :$V%!QII1441QJ ,-./01-&R&4/154+60!67!/ +&?"+*#"&+%'&7?

8 !"#$%!$&'#(")*%$'"# 8]]C1H:J

!:IV7! Highland Park Heritage Trust &QI]:J77+

! `VV %&RR`V((7% P. O. Box 50894 *1 77% Highland Park ! : V: CA

1]: 90004 0.QJV%4%IGV`7% 213-807-4127 8I:1C7% [email protected]

.`Q]V` 7&31JV`& !"# .V#Q1JV`#1J#"%]]Q` #Q`# .V#JQI1J: 1QJ- V% !Q J@JQ1J

4:IV: CHB Developers, Inc, Attn: Ilanit Maghen *QI]:J77%

! `VV %&RR`V((7% 1080 Everett Place *1 77% Los Angeles ! : V7% CA

1]7% 90026-4413 0.QJV%4%IGV`7% 323-807-3888 / 626-354-3283 8I:1C7%

5QI1J: 1QJ&.`V]:`V`L8]]C1H:J ;#&:V]`V#VJ : 10V&

4:IV7! Charles J. Fisher and Jonathan Silberman *QI]:J77% Highland Park Heritage Trust

! `VV %&RR`V((7% 140 S. Avenue 57 *1 77% Highland Park ! : V7% CA

1]7% 90042 0.QJV%4%IGV`7% 323-256-3593 8I:1C7% [email protected]

8 !"#"$%" !CV:%V&`V:R&V:H.&% : VIVJ &:JR&H.VH@& .V&HQ``V%]QJR1J$&GQ6V%& Q&1JR1H: V& .: &7Q%&:$`VV&11 .& .V&% : VIVJ 8& 9.VJ5&VCVH `QJ1H:CC7&Q`&].7%1H:CC7&%1$J& .V&GQ QI&]Q` 1QJ8&;1 .V`& .V&:]]C1H:J &Q`# .V&]`V]:`V`&I:7&%1$J8" !":H@JQ1CVR$V" .: ":CC"RQH%IVJ 1"1%GI1 VR"11CC"GVHQIV"]%GC1H"`VHQ`R1"%JRV`" .V"6:C1`Q`J1:"8%GC1H"9VHQ`R1":H 5" ✔ :JR"%JRV`1 :JR" .: " .V"RQH%IVJ 1"11CC$GV"I:RV":0:1C:GCV"%]QJ"`V_%V1 " Q"IVIGV`1"Q`" .V"]%GC1H"`Q`"1J1]VH 1QJ" :JR"HQ]71J$8

!":H@JQ1CVR$V" .: ":CC"].Q Q$`:].1":JR"1I:$V1"1%GI1 VR":1"]:` "Q`" .11":]]C1H: 1QJ"11CC"GVHQIV" .V"]`Q]V` 7"Q`" ✔ .V"61 7"Q`"@Q1":J$VCV15":JR"%JRV`1 :JR" .: "]V`I1111QJ"11"$`:J VR"`Q`"%1V"Q`" .V"].Q Q$`:].1":JR"1I:$V1"G7" .V" 61 7"11 .Q% ":J7"V6]VH : 1QJ"Q`"HQI]VJ1: 1QJ8

✔ !":H@JQ1CVR$V" .: "!".:0V" .V"`1$. " Q"1%GI1 "Q`".:0V"QG :1JVR" .V":]]`Q]`1: V"]V`I1111QJ" Q"1%GI1 ":CC" 1J`Q`I: 1QJ"HQJ :1JVR"1J" .11":]]C1H: 1QJ8

Digitally signed by Charles J. Fisher Charles J. DN: cn=Charles J. Fisher, o, ou, [email protected], c=US Charles J. Fisher 09-27-16 Fisher Date: 2014.06.06 11:09:19 -07'00' D:IV7 E: V7 B1$J: %`V7

3 UPDATED MARCH 2014 !"#%&'%(&)%*+,-(-) &``1HV%Q`%314 Q`1H%7V4Q%`HV4L!%C %`:C%3V`1 :$V%!QII1441QJ ,-./01-&R&4/154+60!67!/ +&?"+*#"&+%'&7?

8 #%&'(()* .VJ%7Q%%.:0V%HQI]CV VR%]`V]:`1J$%7Q%`%JQI1J: 1QJ5%HQI]1CV%:CC%I: V`1:C(%1J% .V%Q`RV`%(]VH1`1VR%GVCQ18%%&C .Q%$.% .V%VJ 1`V ]:H@V %I%( %JQ %V6HVVR%%]:$V(5%7Q%%I:7%(VJR%:RR1 1QJ:C%I: V`1:C%QJ%:%*F%Q`%`C:(.%R`10V8

&00LQ*&RQG4%*H8*SLQ!R%

8✔ 4QI1J: 1QJ%TQÌ 8% ✔ *Q]1V(%Q`%U%1CR1J$%0VÌ1 (%`Q`%X:=Q`%&C V`: 1QJ(% 8✔ `1 VJ%! : VIVJ (%&%:JR%U ^1JHC%RV%`1`( %HQJ( `%H 1QJ%]VÌ1 _% 8✔ U1GC1Q$`:].7 8 ✔ *QJ VI]Q`:`7%0.Q Q( 8✔ R1Q%0`1I:`7%0.Q Q(%Q`%86 V`1Q`LX:1J%T:M:RV 8 ✔ H1( Q`1H:C%0.Q Q( 8✔ *Q]1V(%Q`%0`1I:`7L!VHQJR:`7%FQH%IVJ ( 8 ✔ QX&!%0:`HVC%IV]Q`

":1C!! .V!%1' Q`1HR,%C %`:C!0QJ%IVJ !3%GI1 :C! Q! .V!*``1HV!Q`! -1. Q`1H!0V.Q%`HV.!Q`!VI:1C!345! Q!C:IGV` 8$1V..1J$V`C:H1 78Q`$!

G``1HV%Q`%H1( Q`1H%IV(Q%`HV!% FV]:` IVJ %Q`%*1 7%0C:JJ1J$% %48%!]`1J$%! `VV 5%IQQI% % LQ(%&J$VCV(5%*&% % 0.QJV7%8 8% VG(1 V7%]`V(V`0: 1QJ8C:H1 78Q`$%

4 UPDATED MARCH 2014

6111 Monterey Road Architectural Description

This 2-story home and detached garage are sited on a large and wide lot, with the house set on the far left and the garage behind the house on the far right of the lot, about back of the lot’s total depth, with a long driveway accessibility from the front. There are front and rear yards. The home is square in shape, and is arraigned with a symmetrical second story of matching casement windows, decorative terracotta grilles in foundation, which are repeated at the top of the porch and wood trim, and an asymmetrical first story that features a right side covered entry and a left side bay window. The rear portion includes enclosed living space on the first floor with an open deck at the second floor. The hipped, pyramidal clay tile roof features a distinctive ornamental detail at its peak, (roof was recently partially removed after the sale of the property to the current owner, but a majority of it still survives today.) The house features a Chinese aesthetic influence, which is an unusual and unique example in the area. The garage is a boxy utilitarian structure… Both buildings are clad in textured stucco, with the house featuring wide vertical wood siding on the upper front portion. A single story wing is to the left rear of the house with a shed composition roof and a small rear wing as well. The original building permit indicates that the wings may date from the original construction.

Architectural details include multi-light steel casement windows, Decorative roof eaves, sloped roof corners, and exterior trim details including half timbering and terracotta grilles in the foundation, accentuate the Chinese architectural influence. Other terracotta grilles frame the front entry and appears on brickwork at the home’s lower portion, beneath the front Regency style window bay. A matching bay window appears on the right side of the home. An original brick chimney on the home’s left side rises above the roofline. A small octagonal stained glass window stands at the front center on the front first story, between the bay window and the arched entry.

A number of mature trees and hedges are present in the front yard, as well as at the rear portion of the lot close to the Toltec Way alleyway. A decorative wrought iron fence is along the front of the property.

6111 Monterey Road

Significance Statement

Built in 1938 by Edgar K Lee, for his wife Alice Lee and their family, this two story home and detached garage on a large lot serves as unique example of Chinese Style Architecture with an American Foursquare massing, and bears historical significance as a home built for one of the early settlers of the Hermon community, as well as a connection to early Chinese immigration to California and development of a Chinese American population in Los Angeles.

Edgar K Lee (originally Coon Lin Lee) was born in China on October 14, 1896, the son of an American-born Chinese Father and Chinese Mother. He came to the United States in 1912 and in roughly 1917 married an American woman, Alice Stuart. Alice had been born in Yutan, Nebraska on July 27, 1891. Her family moved to Corning City, New York before relocating to California. The marriage between them was not allowed under United States law at that time. It is possible that it occurred in another country that allowed the union or, more likely, it was based on a contract drafted by an attorney, much in the manner that Fong See and Letticie "Ticie" Pruitt, a native of Oregon did in Sacramento on January 15, 1897, as documented in their Great Granddaughter, Lisa See's 1995 book, "On Gold Mountain".

Chinese immigrants in the 19th Century were probably the most reviled of all newcomers to the United States. Immigration from China first became heavy during the California Gold Rush which drew many Chinese to "Gold Mountain", as California became known in China. They were later recruited for the building of the transcontinental railroad beginning in the late 1860s. They were overwhelmingly male and were used as laborers, performing the grueling task of clearing the land and laying the tracks from San Francisco up into the Rockies. The Eastern portion was built by Irish immigrants, possibly the second most reviled group of the time due to anti-Catholic bias that existed. They however were to merge into society much easier than their Chinese counterparts.

There were very few Chinese women brought in and many of them were relegated to be prostitutes to appease the desires of the men who were so far from their homes and families. It is possible that Edgar Lee's father was born from one of these liaisons. The immigrants were denied the ability to become United States citizens and were "encouraged" to return to China when their usefulness for the railroads had ended. Lee's father most probably went back to China when his mother was deported. However, due to his being born in California, he was a United States citizen from the time of his birth. This fact was to lead to issues later for Lee when he was viewed as an immigrant but also as a United States citizen in various documents, due to his father's birthplace. However, at the time of his entry in 1912, only the fact that he was a citizen allowed him to even enter the country.

The immigration from China brought out the worst in bigotry with fear of the "yellow peril" bringing about acts of Congress to suppress it. The most notorious was the Chinese Exclusion Act that was signed into law by President Chester Alan Arthur on May 6, 1882 that was intended to prohibit the immigration of Chinese laborers into the United States. The act was supposed to end in a decade, but it was renewed in 1892 and again in 1902, when it was made permanent. It was the first time that the United States implemented a law that was specifically intended to keep a particular ethic group from immigrating.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, during a time when China had become an ally of the U.S. against Japan in World War II. This repeal also occurred in the context of World War II, during which the U.S. fought against German Nazism and needed to embody an image of fairness and justice, and also during a time when the Japanese had become the enemy and China was a critical ally. The Magnuson Act permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. While the Magnuson Act overturned the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act, it only allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year, and did not repeal the restrictions on immigration from the other Asian countries. Large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The crackdown on Chinese immigrants reached a new level in its last decade, from 1956–1965, with the Chinese Confession Program launched by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that encouraged Chinese who had committed immigration fraud to confess, so as to be eligible for some leniency in treatment.

Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites was not repealed until 1948, in which the California Supreme Court ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp. Other states had such laws until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti- miscegenation laws across the nation are unconstitutional.

Alice Lee (formerly Alice Stuart) was the daughter of Reverend William E. Stuart and Ella C. Stuart. Along with her sisters Mary and Wilma, the Stuarts were among the early settlers in Hermon in 1903. Rev Stuart was the pastor of the Hermon Free Methodist Church, from which the congregation established the Hermon Community. The Los Angeles Free Methodist Seminary was established in 1904. The school later became Los Angeles Pacific College, with the college eventually merging with Azusa College and moving to the Azusa Pacific University campus in 1965. The campus was taken over by Pacific Christian High School, which was also Methodist. The school closed in the summer 2004 just before celebrating its 100th anniversary, as the board of the school simply had no money to continue operating. While the school grounds remained shuttered, the school board and the Hermon community discussed the future of the school and its properties. The Hermon Church retained the right of first-refusal. When a developer attempted to buy the property to build housing, the school board and the church prepared to enter the courts to settle the matter. However, an appropriate buyer, agreeable to both sides appeared and on December 7, 2006, the school board agreed to the sale of the 7-acre site to Bethesda Christian University.

After the sale to Bethesda was completed, the new owners signed a multi-year lease of the historic campus to Los Angeles International Charter High School (LAICHS), beginning with the 2007-08 academic year. LAICHS operates as public secondary school under the umbrella of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. In 2009, LAICHS graduated its first senior class of approximately 40 students. Current enrollment as of 2014 averages 250 students in grades 9 through 12; future plans call for addition of grades 7 and 8.

The Stuart sisters attended Bushnell Way Elementary and Mary and Wilma attended LA Seminary (now the site of LA International Charter High School). Alice’s niece, Annie Sakamoto, had been adopted by her sister Wilma and still lives in Hermon today. Alice worked as a school teacher in Los Angeles from at least 1920-1940.

The Lees had three children. Their son David Lee, (Born 1921 in China). Another son, Paul Lee, was born in 1926 in California. The youngest was daughter Ruth Lee, who was born in 1928 in Inglewood, California. All three of the children were adopted, but records indicate that Ruth may have been the couple's biological child. It should be noted that it was common practice in California, at the time, to file new birth records in the case of adoptions, listing the adoptive parents as the actual parents. Due to this red tape, it is nearly impossible for the adoptive children to get their real birth records without a court order.

Per census records, Edgar listed his employment field to be ‘Packing’ as of 1920. This changed to a ‘Salesman’ of ‘Dry Goods’ in 1930. Mr. Lee eventually opened his own store, becoming proprietor of a ‘Retail Gift Store’ in Pasadena by 1940. The family was living in Long Beach in April 1935 and in 1938, Edgar built the home at 6111 Monterey Road in Hermon for his family. Records also show that the Lees made several trips to China over the course of their marriage, which unlike that of Ticie and Fong See (which ended in a contract divorce), was to last until Alice Lee passed away June 19, 1962 at the age of 70 at the family home in the Belmont Shores section of Long Beach. On June 17, 1965, Edgar Lee married Opal J. Robison in Kern County and passed away there on November 28, 1970, at the age of 74.

The home features decorative details that are evocative of a distinctly Chinese aesthetic tradition. Perhaps the most notable features being the decorative roof eaves, the hipped pyramidal clay tile roof with sloped corners and a curved decorative center peak, and exterior trim on the front portion which includes half timbering and decorative terracotta grilles.

The Lee Residence qualifies for Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument as a rare example of a Chinese style house built at a time when the Chinese were officially classified as persona non grata by the United States. It is also significant as it reflects the broad cultural and social history of the nation, state and the Hermon Community both for its association with the history of Chinese immigration and assimilation into the American Culture and how one family defied the norms and created a life for themselves in spite of legal and cultural odds against them, helping to redefine and eliminate the taboos against them. Also, the association with the early history of the Hermon community

Bibliography

Other Sources

Los Angeles Times Articles:

Mrs. Alice Luella Lee Obituary (Attached)...... June 22, 1962, Page 28

Wikipedia Articles:

Chinese Exclusion Act (Attached)

Magnuson Act (Attached)

Perez v. Sharp (Attached)

Reports:

National Register Bulletin No. 15...…How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 1990

Other Official Records:

Los Angeles County Assessor's Office Maps and Tax Records

Los Angeles County Subdivision Map for Oak Hill Park Tract, 2 MB 75-76

United States Census Records from 1900 through 1940

United States Immigration Records

Social Security Death Index

California Death Index

¡ ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¤ ¥ ¦ £ § ¨ © ¢ ¨ M V W M X V Y Z [ [ V X \ \ X \

A 1 ; 1 6 ( ] U

A > ; 1 6 9 6 U 9 ; : ! " # $ % & $ ' ( $ & % & $ " ) * + , - ' . / 0 " *

1 2 ! $ . 3 ! " 2 . 4 5 ) 4 6 7 8 4 9 : :

N M ^ W [ X \ . . . . ! $ % & ! , ' * - 7

7 - 1 $ % " ; < = 9 < 1 9 ( 1

> $ ? 9 0 @ % > 3 8 # A

V X ^ X _ Y ^ Y ` Y Z 3 & ! % B

! @ ! " C

' ! " ( " 9 0 @ % * ! @

^ \ X _ a b c X V \ > $ ? D 2 "

( ( 8 7 C 7 8 - 7 E F ¢ ¤ ¡ G ¨ © ¢ ¨

( ( 8 7 C 7 8 8 9 ; ( ! @ 5 " H & $ @ $ ! " 2 $ . " ! . @ I & .

( ( 8 7 C A 8 C A 8 4 ( $ & $ @ @ 5 @ I ( ! 5 . . 5 ! @ 6 $ . " ! . @ I & .

; 9 : 8 - A A 8 D ( 5 I 2 ! 2 ! ! ) ( ! @ % 5 & ! H ! D % !

; 9 : 8 A ( ! @ % 5 & : 5 . " 5 % " ( : - 8 J ! . = 5 K $

; 9 : 8 A A A 8 D ( @ . . 1 $ % " L C ,

; 9 : 8 7 7 : 3 D : 5 . " 5 % " ; 0 0 5 % ! . @ I & . > " !

d 1 1 8 - 8 D M © ¨ § ¨ ¡ N § ¢ ¨

6 d 8 A 8 7 C 8 6 P D ? % 5 $ & ! " . ! @

6 d 8 8 7 8 ( 6 O ! @ 5 @ I 9 : , 8

O ! @ 5 @ I @ 0 ! $ " 5 ! @ ' O * O 8 - P Q $ H ) R $ % @ " ) S 5 . ! H ! " 5 % 0 ! D @ . 5 " 5 S T . .

O 8 7 6 D 1 ; D 4 6 6 D D 1 1 6 6 1 6 9 9 D 6 O ; 6

4 @ $ & & $ @ $ @ ) T . ! Q > ) 5 9 . 5 ) @ " 5 $ &

4 @ $ & & $ @ P ! ! " @ ! " ' . * U .

= 5 & & . 5 ) $ ' O ! @ 5 @ I ( ! ) * U .

3 $ . & 5 @ = 5 & & . 5 ) ; ) 5 @ $ @ % !

3 $ . & 5 @ > $ @ . 5 ! @ 5 K $ " 5 ! @ ; ) 5 @ $ @ % !

D ? % 5 0 5 % & $ @ $ ! @

D ? % 5 $ & $ @ ) T . # O ! @ 5 @ I ! @

: . 5 I @ 9 S 5 Q 3 ! $ ) !

= 5 . " ! 5 % . S $ " 5 ! @ 9 S 5 Q !

= 5 . " ! 5 % . S $ " 5 ! @ ; S & $ H O ! @ ! @

; " 2 = 5 . " ! 5 % : . 5 I @ $ " 5 ! @ . ! @

; " 2 = 5 . " ! 5 % D S H @ 0 ! $ " 5 ! @ ! @

> 5 & & . % " ( ! @ " $ % " ! @

; : 8 ) . " 5 $ @ ; 5 @ " ) : 5 . " 5 % " . ! @

( : ; 8 ( ! @ 5 " H : . 5 I @ ; S & $ H ! @

D ; 8 5 I 2 ! 2 ! ! ) D " $ 5 & 5 K $ " 5 ! @ ; S & $ H !

D 5 I @ : 5 . " 5 % " !

D " " . % $ ? !

) $ ? " 5 S 9 . @ % @ " 5 S $ ! @

6 & & 5 . % " ! ? " H !

9 @ " D " $ 5 & 5 K $ " 5 ! @ ; ) 5 @ $ @ % ' 9 D ; * !

( 9 8 ( ! @ 5 " H 9 ) S & ! ? @ " I @ % H ! @

( @ " $ & ( 5 " H $ B 5 @ I !

: ! Q @ " ! Q @ $ B 5 @ I !

e f g h i j k l i m g h h n o p j q m m l m f j m j i r h s t u q l t u g m g l t h s h h j m v l i m f l t m f j w j o h g m j x y l i r l i j u j m s g z h { k z j s h j i j v j i m l m f j m j i r h s t u q l t u g m g l t h s m | g r s h x z s q g m } x l i ~

i j s g h k i l g u j u s h g h v i l r m f j l h t ~ j z j h l n t m } h n o z g q l i h { y z l l u l t m i l z { j t j v g m h h j h h r j t m x

3 5 & ) 5 @ I 5 @ ! @

P " D % 2 ! ! & O ! @ !

P " $ B O ! @ % " 5 S = ! @ $ B ; 0 0 $ . 2 : ! I 6 % 5 . $

% " 5 S = ! @ $ B

% " 5 S ! H ! D % ! $ B

¤ ¤ £ ¤ ¤ ¢ ¢ ¨

. . . . ! $ % & ! , ' * - 7

$ ' ( ! , & 5 % ] ! B . * , ' $ % *

T . ( ! ) 8 D 5 @ I & 9 . 5 ) @ % Q 5 " 2 ! ! &

. . . . ) $ @ ) d $ & , ¡ +

. . . . ) ? ! S @ " d $ & , ¡ 7 +

$ . " ; Q @ ( 2 $ @ I 7 # #

$ . " D $ & ! @ " ¡ C + C

1 $ 9 $ " $ -

: ) 9 0 ! , ' ( 5 " H ( & B * 7 8 7

C 7 A -

A A

- A 8

C A A 8

3 5 & ) 5 @ I

U $ 3 5 & " 7 C

3 5 & ) 5 @ I ( & $ . . : A 3

! 0 T @ 5 " .

! 0 3 ) ! ! . -

! 0 3 $ " 2 ! ! .

3 5 & ) 5 @ I D / $ P ! ! " $ I + 7 , ' . / 0 " *

3 5 & ) 5 @ I ! ) $ " $ 0 ! 5 & ) 5 @ I

3 5 & ) 5 @ I - ! ) $ " $ 0 ! 5 & ) 5 @ I -

3 5 & ) 5 @ I ! ) $ " $ 0 ! 5 & ) 5 @ I

¡ ¡ ¨ © ¢ ¨

5 ? ! " = $ K $ ) ! @

( ! $ . " $ & O ! @ ! @

P $ & $ @ ) $ ! " > $ ? ? )

d H = 5 I 2 P 5 = $ K $ ) D S 5 " H O ! @ U .

P 5 : 5 . " 5 % " ! , !

P & ! ! ) O ! @ ! @

] $ " % ! . !

= $ K $ ) ! . ] $ . " # 3 ! ) O ! @ ! ? " 5 . !

> " 2 $ @ = $ K $ ) D 5 " ! @

= 5 I 2 ] 5 @ ) d & ! % 5 " H $ . !

D ? % 5 $ & 4 $ ) 5 @ I $ ' 3 ; 6 3 $ . 5 % 4 5 ) > $ ? 8 U .

; 5 & ] & & . ! @

\ £ ¤ G ¢ ¨ £ ¨ ¢ ¡ ¤

% " 5 S P $ & " $ 8 D ! % O ! @

$ . " P $ & " ' : 5 . " $ @ % 5 @ B * , 7 - C -

$ . " P $ & " ' $ * 9 $ H ! @ ) P $ & "

9 I 5 ! @ 1 $ @ . S . 9 $ @ I . $ @ ) ! . @ I & . 3 $ . 5 @

P $ & " 1 H ? 3

D & 5 ? 9 $ " ' # H $ * ,

D & 5 ? 4 ! " H 0 " $ " $ & 8 9 S . 8 ; & 5 /

D & 5 ? 1 H ? > ! ) $ " & H ( ! @ . " $ 5 @ )

: ! Q @ : 5 ? ] 5 ) " 2 ' B * ,

9 ? " 1 ! ? ,

i j s g h k i l g u j u s h g h v i l r m f j l h t ~ j z j h l n t m } h n o z g q l i h { y z l l u l t m i l z { j t j v g m h h j h h r j t m x

9 ? " 3 ! " " ! ,

: 5 ? @ I & ' ) I . * 8 ,

> $ 5 > $ I @ 5 " ) A ,

& / 5 . " 8 5 ! & ! P $ & " O ! @ !

$ @ ) . & 5 ) !

5 / 0 $ % " 5 ! @ U .

& 5 5 @ $ H P $ & " 9 ? " D " ) H $ !

1 . @ $ 5 @ @ ) $ " 5 ! @ O ! @ !

3 . 5 @ . . ? ! S @ " : 5 . " 5 % " ! @

! 5 . O ! @ !

9 @ Q $ & ( ! @ 5 " H !

9 S 5 " $ & 5 K $ " 5 ! @ O ! @ ! @

D " $ " 6 @ " ? 5 . O ! @ 6 D 1 ; D 4 6 6 D D 1 1 6 6 1 6 9 9 D 6 O ; 6

1 $ I " ) 5 I 2 ! 2 ! ! ) @ 5 " 5 $ " 5 S ! @

! & 5 % @ 0 ! $ " 5 ! @

3 $ ( @ " $ &

: 5 S 5 . 5 ! @ # D " $ " 5 ! @ = ! & & @ % B

9 ? ! " 5 @ I : 5 . " 5 % " - -

P 5 @ 0 ! $ " 5 ! @

3 $ ( @ " $ &

3 $ " $ & & 5 ! @

: 5 . " 5 % " # P 5 D " $ " 5 ! @

9 ) P & $ I 9 . " 5 % " ) $ B 5 @ I !

i j s g h k i l g u j u s h g h v i l r m f j l h t ~ j z j h l n t m } h n o z g q l i h { y z l l u l t m i l z { j t j v g m h h j h h r j t m x

! " @ 0 ! $ " 5 ! @ 0 ! % $ . . $ 5 . 5 . " 5 S ) 0 ! " 2 & $ @ @ 5 @ I : ? $ " @ " ° . & $ @ ( $ . 1 $ % B 5 @ I D H . " ' ( 1 D * ) $ " $ $ . ,

( $ . ( ( 8 7 C 7 8 - 7

9 / 5 ) % " 5 ! @ ' . * : $ " $ ! " S $ 5 & $ &

! R % " : . % 5 ? " 5 ! @ . ' . *

( $ . ( ( 8 7 C 7 8 8 9 ;

9 / 5 ) % " 5 ! @ ' . * 9 ; 8 1 6 9 > 9 6 d D ; ; 9 : ( 6

! R % " : . % 5 ? " 5 ! @ . ' . * : $ " $ ! " S $ 5 & $ &

( $ . ( ( 8 7 C A 8 C A 8 4 (

9 / 5 ) % " 5 ! @ ' . * 4 ( 8 4 6 6 9 # O ; 4 ( ; D D 1 6 ( U ' 3 C *

! R % " : . % 5 ? " 5 ! @ . ' . * 4 6 6 9 # O ; 4 ( ; D D 1 6 ( U 8 O ; 6 ( = 4 6 D 8 = 6 4 = 1 : D 1 9 ( 1 ( = 4 6 D : > 6 : > 6 1 D 8

d 9 ; T D ; ( 1 ; D

( $ . d 1 1 8 - 8 D

9 / 5 ) % " 5 ! @ ' . * D 8 D > ; 1 D T 3 : d D ;

! R % " : . % 5 ? " 5 ! @ . ' . * d 6 D 1 1 6 1 1 d 6 1 9 ( 1 > 6 9 D 6 ( 1 ; , + > ( + 6 ] C 8 T 1 D > ; 1 D T 3 : d D ; 1 = 6 9 : , 8 O ; 6 ,

( $ . 6 d 8 A 8 7 C 8 6 P

9 / 5 ) % " 5 ! @ ' . * 6 P 8 6 d 9 ; > 6 1 D D 6 D D > 6 1

! R % " : . % 5 ? " 5 ! @ . ' . * : $ " $ ! " S $ 5 & $ &

( $ . 6 d 8 8 7 8 ( 6

9 / 5 ) % " 5 ! @ ' . * ( 6 8 ( 1 6 4 ; 9 ( 6 ± 6 > 1 ;

! R % " : . % 5 ? " 5 ! @ . ' . * 1 = 6 9 ; ; D 6 : ; 9 : ( 6 > ; : P 6 D D 6 ( 1 ; , 7 ; P 1 = 6 ; D 4 6 6 D : > D 1 9 1 d 6 ( ; : 6 1 ; ; ]

; 9 4 9 1 > T 9 D ; ; 1 D : 6 d 6 ; 6 : ] 1 = ; U ; 6 D 4 6 8 P > U 9 6 D : 6 1 D 1 9 T ( 1 T 9 6 : 1 = 1 9 6

; ( 1 6 : ] 1 = ( ; T ( : D 1 9 ( 1 D + 7 + : - ,

; 9 : 8 - A A 8 D (

; 9 : 8 A

; 9 : 8 A A A 8 D

; 9 : 8 7 7

i j s g h k i l g u j u s h g h v i l r m f j l h t ~ j z j h l n t m } h n o z g q l i h { y z l l u l t m i l z { j t j v g m h h j h h r j t m x

Annie Sakamoto from Hermon In 1946, I came to live with Miss Wilma C Stuart as one of her foster children. Her middle sister, Alice Stuart, lived with husband, Edgar Lee, and their 3 adopted Chinese children. I've known each of the family very well, as we would visit them or they would come to our house for special occasions. The 3 sisters Stuarts, including father Rev Wm Stuart, Ella C Stuart, were part of the early Hermon settlers in 1903. The girls attended Bushnell Way Elem. School. Mary and Wilma attended LA seminary on what's current LAI grounds. Mary taught for a few yrs at Bushnell Way before the family moved to San Diego to further Mary's teaching education then returned to Hermon area. All 3 sisters taught for many yrs through the LAUSD Thank you, Kristen, very much for the Lee's background info and especially their photos.

Annie Sakamoto from Hermon Enclosed is a photo of very early days of Hermon Elem School in which Mary Stuart, standing in the background was one of the teachers. Her sister, Wilma, is inside the red circle. I'm attempting to send the photo of The Stuart family: parents, 3 Stuart Sisters.

Annie Sakamoto from Hermon Enclosed is the photo of Stuart family in early days of Hermon. Stuarts' parents, Mrs Ella Stuart (who was so pretty), Rev Wm Stuart holding little Wilma in his lap, 2 other Stuart sisters (Mary with long hairs to one side), Alice Stuart (in ribbon on top of hand, and unidentified aunt (?)

V %# Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

Chinese Exclusion Act From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. It was one of the most significant restrictions on free immigration in US Chinese Exclusion Act history, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the US-China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the US to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was renewed in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943.

Long title An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations Contents relating to Chinese. Nicknames Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 1 Background the 47th United States Congress 2 The Act Enacted by 3 Repeal and current status Effective May 6, 1882 4 See also Citations 5 Footnotes 47-126 (http://legisworks.org/congress 6 Further reading Public law /47/session-1/chap-126.pdf) 7 External links Statutes at 22 Stat. 58 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-22-58) Large Background Legislative history Introduced in the House as H.R. 5804 by Horace F. Page The first significant Chinese immigration to North America began with the California Gold Rush (R–CA) on April 12, 1882 of 1848–1855 and continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the Committee consideration by House Foreign Relations First Transcontinental Railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was Passed the house on April 17, 1882 (202-37 plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated, if not well received.[1] As gold became harder to find and (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/47-1/h83)) competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased. After being Passed the Senate on April 28, 1882 (32-15 forcibly driven from the mines, most Chinese settled in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/47-1/s370)) with and took up low-wage labor, such as restaurant and laundry work. With the post-Civil War amendment economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader House agreed to Senate amendment on May 3, Denis Kearney and his Workingman's Party[2] as well as by California Governor John Bigler, 1882 (Agreed) both of whom blamed Chinese "coolies" for depressed wage levels. Another significant Signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, anti-Chinese group organized in California during this same era was the Supreme Order of 1882 Caucasians, with some 60 chapters statewide.

In the early 1850s, there was resistance to the idea of excluding Chinese migrant workers from immigration, because they provided essential tax revenue which helped fill the fiscal gap of California.[3] But toward the end of the decade, the financial situation improved and subsequently, attempts to legislate Chinese exclusion became successful on the state level.[3] In 1858, the California Legislature passed a law that made it illegal for any person "of the Chinese or Mongolian races" to enter the state; however, this law was struck down by an unpublished opinion of the State Supreme Court in 1862.[4] The Chinese immigrant workers provided cheap labor and did not use any of the government infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc.) because the Chinese migrant population was predominantly made up of healthy male adults.[3] As time passed and more and more Chinese migrants arrived in California, violence would often break out in cities such as Los Angeles. By 1878 Congress decided to act and passed legislation excluding the Chinese, but this was vetoed by President Rutherford B. Hayes. In 1879, California adopted a new Constitution, which explicitly authorized the state government to determine which individuals were allowed to reside in the state, and banned the Chinese from employment by corporations and state, county or municipal governments.[5] Once the Chinese Exclusion Act was finally passed in 1882, California went further by passing various laws that were later held to be [6] unconstitutional. After the act was passed, most Chinese families were faced with a dilemma: stay in the United States alone or The first page of the Chinese [7] go back to China to reunite with their families. Although there was widespread dislike for the Chinese, some capitalists and Exclusion Act entrepreneurs resisted their exclusion because they accepted lower wages.[8]

The Act

For the first time, Federal law proscribed entry of an ethnic working group on the premise that it endangered the good order of certain localities. (The earlier Page Act of 1875 had prohibited immigration of Asian forced laborers and prostitutes, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 prohibited naturalization of non-white subjects.) The Act excluded Chinese laborers, meaning "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining," from This "Official Map of Chinatown 1885" was entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation.[9][10] published as part of an official report of a Special Committee established by the San The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few nonlaborers who sought entry to obtain certification from the Chinese Francisco Board of Supervisors "on the government that they were qualified to emigrate. However, this group found it increasingly difficult to prove that Condition of the Chinese Quarter" they were not laborers[10] because the 1882 act defined excludables as “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.” Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law. Diplomatic officials and

1 of 5 9/26/2016 10:47 PM Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

other officers on business, along with their house servants, for the Chinese government were also allowed entry as long as they had the proper certification verifying their credentials.[11]

The Act also affected the Chinese who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the Act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from U.S. citizenship.[9][10] After the Act's passage, Chinese men in the U.S. had little chance of ever reuniting with their wives, or of starting families in their new abodes.[9]

Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous immigrants to leave and return, and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The Scott Act (1888) expanded upon the Chinese immigrant workers building Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry after leaving the U.S. Constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the the Transcontinental Railroad Scott Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889); the Supreme Court declared that "the power of exclusion of foreigners [is] an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution." The Act was renewed for ten years by the 1892 Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902.[10] When the act was extended in 1902, it required "each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation."[10]

Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for habeas corpus.[12] In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner.[12] Except in cases of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs Lem Moon Sing (1895). In U.S. vs Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy's petition was thus barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. All these developments, along with the extension of the act in 1902, triggered a boycott of U.S. goods in China between 1904 and 1906.[13] There was one 1885 case in San Francisco, however, in which Treasury Department officials in Washington overturned a decision to deny entry to two Chinese Students.[14]

One of the critics of the Chinese Exclusion Act was the anti-slavery/anti-imperialist Republican Senator George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts who described the Act as "nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination."[15]

The laws were driven largely by racial concerns; immigration of persons of other races was unlimited during this Front page of The San Francisco Call period.[16] -November 20th 1901, Chinese Exclusion Convention On the other hand, many people strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, including the Knights of Labor, a labor union, who supported it because it believed that industrialists were using Chinese workers as a wedge to keep wages low.[17] Among labor and leftist organizations, the Industrial Workers of the World were the sole exception to this pattern. The IWW openly opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act from its inception in 1905.[18]

For all practical purposes, the Exclusion Act, along with the restrictions that followed it, froze the Chinese community in place in 1882. Limited immigration from China continued until the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943. From 1910 to 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station on what is now Angel Island State Park in San Francisco Bay served as the processing center for most of the 56,113 Chinese immigrants who are recorded as immigrating or returning from China; upwards of 30% more who showed up were returned to China. Furthermore, after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which destroyed City Hall and the Hall of Records, many immigrants (known as "paper sons") claimed that they had familial ties to resident Chinese-American citizens. Whether these were true or not cannot be proven.

The Chinese Exclusion Act gave rise to the first great wave of commercial human smuggling, an activity that later spread to include other national and ethnic groups.[19]

A political cartoon from 1882, The Chinese Exclusion Act also led to an expansion of the power of U.S. immigration showing a Chinese man being barred law through its influence on Canada's policies on Chinese exclusion during this time Certificate of identity issued to entry to the "Golden Gate of Liberty". because of the need for greater vigilance at the U.S.-Canada border. Shortly after the Yee Wee Thing certifying that The caption reads, "We must draw the U.S. Chinese Exclusion Act, Canada established the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 he is the son of a US citizen, line somewhere, you know." which imposed a head tax on Chinese migrants entering Canada. After increasing issued Nov. 21, 1916. This was pressure from the U.S. government, Canada finally established the Chinese Immigration necessary for his immigration Act, 1923 which banned most forms of immigration by the Chinese to Canada. There was also a need for this kind of border from China to the United control along the U.S-Mexico border, however, efforts to control the border went along a different path because Mexico was States. fearful of expanding imperial power of the U.S. and did not want U.S. interference in Mexico. Not only this, but Chinese immigration to Mexico was welcomed because the Chinese immigrants filled Mexico's labor needs. The Chinese Exclusion Act actually led to heightened Chinese immigration to Mexico because of exclusion by the U.S. Therefore, the U.S. resorted to heavily policing the border along Mexico.

Later, the Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian immigrant groups.[9] Until these restrictions were relaxed in the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were forced to live a life separated from their families, and to build ethnic enclaves in which they could survive on their own (Chinatown).[9] The Chinese Exclusion Act did not address the problems that whites were facing; in fact, the Chinese were quickly and eagerly replaced by the Japanese, who assumed the role of the Chinese in society. Unlike the Chinese, some Japanese were even able to climb the rungs of society by setting up businesses or becoming truck farmers.[20] However, the Japanese were later targeted in the National Origins Act of 1924, which banned immigration from east Asia entirely.

2 of 5 9/26/2016 10:47 PM Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

In 1891 the Government of China refused to accept the U.S. Senator Mr. Henry W. Blair as U.S. Minister to China due to his abusive remarks regarding China during negotiation of the Chinese Exclusion Act.[21]

The American Christian Rev. Dr. George F. Pentecost spoke out against western imperialism in China, saying: I personally feel convinced that it would be a good thing for America if the embargo on Chinese immigration were removed. I think that the annual admission of 100,000 into this country would be a good thing for the country. And if the same thing were done in the Philippines those islands would be a veritable Garden of Eden in twenty-five years. The presence of Chinese workmen in this country would, in my opinion, do a very great deal toward solving our labor problems. There is no comparison between the Chinaman, even of the lowest coolie class, and the man who comes here from Southeastern Europe, from Russia, or from Southern Italy. The Chinese are thoroughly good workers. That is why the laborers here hate them. I think, too, that the emigration to America would help the Chinese. At least he would come into contact with some real Christian people in America. The Chinaman lives in squalor because he is poor. If he had some prosperity his squalor would cease.[22]

Repeal and current status

The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act, during a time when China had become an ally of the U.S. against Japan in World War II. This repeal also occurred in the context of World War II, during which the U.S. fought against German Nazism and needed to embody an image of fairness and justice, and also during a time when the Japanese were becoming vilified. The Magnuson Act permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. While the Magnuson Act overturned the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act, it only allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year, and did not repeal the restrictions on immigration from the other Asian countries. Large scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The crackdown on Chinese immigrants reached a new level in its last decade, from 1956–1965, with the Chinese Confession Program launched by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that encouraged Chinese who had committed immigration fraud to confess, so as to be eligible for some leniency in treatment.

Despite the fact that the exclusion act was repealed in 1943, the law in California prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites was not repealed until 1948, in which the California Supreme Court ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp.[23][24] Other states had such laws until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws across the nation are unconstitutional.

Even today, although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed "Exclusion of Chinese."[25] It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group.

On June 18, 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Judy Chu, that formally expresses the regret of the House of Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Act, which imposed almost total restrictions on Chinese immigration and naturalization and denied Chinese-Americans basic freedoms because of their ethnicity.[26] The resolution had been approved by the U.S. Senate in October 2011.[27]

In 2014, the California Legislature took formal action to pass measures that formally recognize the many proud accomplishments of Chinese-Americans in California and to call upon Congress to formally apologize for the 1882 adoption of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) and incoming Senate President pro-Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) served as Joint Authors for Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 23 and Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 122.[28]

SJR 23 acknowledges and celebrates the history and contributions of Chinese Americans in California. The resolution also formally calls on Congress to apologize for laws which resulted in the persecution of Chinese Americans, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.[29]

Perhaps most importantly is the sociological implications for understanding ethnic/race relations in the context of American history: there is a tendency for minorities to be punished in times of economic, political and/or geopolitical crises. Times of social and sytemic stability, however, tend to mute whatever underlying tensions exist between different groups. In times of societal crisis--whether perceived or real--patterns or retractability of American identities have eurupted to the fore of America's political landscape, often generating institutional and civil society backlash against workers from other nations, a pattern documented by Fong's research into how crises drastically alters social relationships.[30]