Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-11-07
CHINESE RESIST
CITY ORDINANCE
MAINTAIN LAUNDRY IN PRO-
HlBITED TERRITORY
SEVERAL COURTS HAVE DECIDED
AGAINST THEM
AS a Last Resort Police Arrest All
orientaIs at Place of Business
and Case Comes Mo-
vember IL

An old trouble between the city and
the proprietors of a Chinese laundry
on Thompson street, between Twenty
third and Washington streets, has
broken out afresh, and another legal
battle will be waged in the police court
as the result.
The history of the differences be
tween the Chinese and the representa-
tives Of the city prosecutors office be-
gan some time ago when the laundry
men We're served with notices to cease
conducting a laundry business in that
section, because of the location, the law
prohibiting such business in that terri
tory.
The operation of laundry in that
section, which abounds in fine resi-
denees, has been the cause of much
dissent between the proprietors of the
place and the residents of that neigh
borhood, who have been using every
fair means possible to stop the bust
ness.
Some time ago the Chinese conduct
ing the place were arrested on two oc-
casions and taken into police court.
The men employed counsel and fought
the charges on the grounds that the
ordinance under which their arrest was
made is unconstitutional. A demurrer
was filed to the complaint, which the
police justice overruled, sustaining the
validity of the ordinance.
The fight was taken into the United
States circuit court and the federal
judge decided the ordinance was con-
stitutional.
The case was brought to trial again
in the police court and the Chinese
were found guilty. Not content with
this, the defendants appealed the case
to the superior court where Judge
Wilbur also sustained the validity OF
the ordinance.
ants went to China, and the appeal
bond remains unpaid by him. L. w.
Blinn is one of the bondsmen.
Continue to Conduct Laundry
notwithstanding their unsuccessful
attempts to have the ordinance de-
clared unconstitutional, the men con-
tinued to conduct the business during
the absence of the proprietor, forcing
the prosecuting attorney again to issue
complaints against them. This hap
pened a few days ago, and the repre-
sentatives of the prosecutors office
thought it would be the last arrest
necessary in the case; that the men
would close the place.
The Chinese were persistent, how
ever, and had no sooner left the court
room than the place was reopened.
Deciding to- take drastic measures,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Eddie
issued a complaint for the arrest of all
persons employed at the laundry.
Several patrolmen from the Univer-
sity station arrested the men and they
were arraigned in police court, the fol-
lowing Chinese responding to their
names: Lee Sing, Lee Hong, All Bow.
Lee Pong, Lee Lem, Do Lem, Lee Gan
and Jim Ling. They pleaded not guilty
and their trial was set for Novem-
her IL.
As a result of his determination to
make the laundrymen obey the law,
Prosecutor Eddie and Alfred Cooper,
proprietor of the laundry property, had
a tilt in the prosecutors office, and
Cooper is said to have remarked he
intended to have the laundry con-
Quoted in spite Of the city ordinance,
the police and prosecuting attorney.
Eddie replied that if Cooper was found
to have an interest in the business he
too would be arrested and prosecuted.
1t is thought the matter again will
be taken to a higher court.