Case Summary
Lee Fong challenged his detainment in violation of Seattle city ordinance. Fong, a Chinese immigrant, was denied his request to build a laundry and was jailed for violating Seattle Ordinance No. 710, which outlined the city's safety and licensing requirements for laundries.
Fong, through his lawyer, claimed that the city ordinance was invalid and arbitrary and that his detainment violated the 14th and 5th Amendments.
In addition, Fong's petition claimed intentional racial discrimination by the Seattle City Council and fire department.
According to Fong's petition, he sought initial approval for his laundry through his lessor, the building's owner, John Miller. Despite a minor safety concern expressed by the fire inspector, the city health and plumbing inspector approved the laundry, as did the city council. Fong claimed he then spent over $600 to renovate the building. Soon after, members of the public petitioned the government to rescind its approval of "the Chinese laundry." City Council did so on July 21 1902.
J.M. Weistling, in his role as Fong's lawyer, pointed to various court decisions related to similar city licensing and regulation and demonstrated that courts had found that, specifically in the case of ordinances like Seattle's regarding laundries, had been found unconstitutional, as they provided the cities "arbitrary powers" that allowed for unequal treatment under the laws. In addition, Weistling claimed that the Council's decision was based solely on Fong's racial identity: "real objection to the granting of council’s consent for the maintenance of said laundry was the ascertainment of the fact that it was to be conducted by a Chinaman.”
In their response, the Respondent's attorney sought to claim that the cited cases Weistling claimed demonstrated Fong's claims were incorrect as clauses 2 and 3 of the ordinance made clause 6 not an arbitrary power.
On September 25, 1902 the judge ruled for Fong's writ. There is no documentation of his release, though he may have been released on bail earlier. It is not known whether the Council allowed Fong to run his laundry.
Case Information
Petition type(s)
Petition subtype(s)
- Refusal or inability to pay fine
- Violation of city ordinance
Sites of significance
Outcome
Writ allowed
Fate of bound party
Unknown
Case Citation
RG 21 US Circuit Courts, Western District of Washington, Seattle; Law Register Northern Division, 1899-1906, vol 2
Source material(s)
Case File
Length of case file
Between 51 and 75 pages
Repository(s)
State
Point(s) of law cited
Sec. 6 & 7 of Ordinance NO. 710 of City of Seattle, approved Feb. 6 1886
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US, 356;
Case of Re Wo Lee 26 Federal Reporter 471, Circuit Court of California Jan 26 1886;
Stockton laundry case, Tie Lot, 26 Fed Reporter 611 to 616;
Sam Kee reported 31st Fed Reporter 680 to 681;
Hong Wah 82 Fed Reporter 623, Northern Dist. of California on Sept 7 1897;
Grice Federal Reporter 627, 633, Circuit Court of Northern Texas;
Minneapolis Brewing Co. vs. McGilloway 104 Fed Reporter 258;
Gundling v. City of Chicago rep 177, 725
Tag(s)
