Soon Hing v. Crowley

Decision Date16 March 1885
PartiesSOON HING v. CROWLEY, Chief of Police, etc
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The petitioner in the court below, the plaintiff in error here, was arrested by the defendant, who is chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco, for an alleged violation of an ordinance of the board of supervisors of that municipality, approved on the eighteenth of June, 1883; and while in custody of the officer applied to the circuit court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus, in order to obtain his discharge. The circuit court refused to issue the writ; the judges of the court being divided in opinion, and that of the presiding judge controlling.

The ordinance was adopted to regulate the establishment and maintenance of public laundries and wash-houses within certain limits of the city and county of San Francisco. It recited that the indiscriminate establishment of such laundries and wash-houses, where clothes and other articles were cleansed for hire, endangered the public health and public safety, prejudiced the wellbeing and comfort of the community, and depreciated the value of property in their neighborhood. It then ordained, pursuant to the authority vested in the board, that after its passage it should be unlawful for any person to establish, maintain, or carry on the business of a public laundry or a public wash-house within certain designated limits of the city and county, without having first obtained a certificate of the health officer of the municipality that the premises were properly and sufficiently drained, and that all proper arrangements were made to carry on the business without injury to the sanitary condition of the neighborhood; and also a certificate of the board of firewardens of the municipality that the stoves, washing and drying apparatus, and the appliances for heating smoothing-irons were in good condition, and that their use was not dangerous to surrounding property from fire, and that all proper precautions were taken to comply with the provisions of the ordinance defining the fire limits of the city and county, and making regulations concerning the erection and use of buildings therein. The ordinance requires the health officer and the board of wardens, upon the application of any one desirous to open or conduct the business of a public laundry, to inspect the premises in which it is proposed to carry on the business, in order to ascertain whether they are provided with proper drainage and sanitary appliances, and whether the provisions of the fire ordinance have been complied with; and if found satisfactory in all respects, to issue to the applicant the required certificates, without charge for the services rendered. Its fourth section declares that no person owning or employed in a public laundry or a public wash-house within the prescribed limits shall wash or iron clothes between the hours of 10 in the evening and 6 in the morning, or upon any portion of Sunday; and its fifth section declares that no person engaged in the laundry business within those limits shall permit any one suffering from an infectious or contagious disease to lodge, sleep, or remain upon the premises. The violation of any of these provisions is declared to be a misdemeanor, and penalties are prescribed according to the nature of the offense. The establishing, maintaining, or carrying on the business without obtaining the certificate is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment of not more than six months, or by both. Carrying on the business outside of the hours prescribed, or permitting persons with contagious diseases on the premises, is punishable by a fine of not less than $5 or more than $50, or by imprisonment of not more than one month, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The petitioner was arrested by the chief of police upon a warrant to a police judge of the municipality, issued upon a complaint under oath, that the petitioner had washed and ironed clothes in a public laundry within the prescribed limits between the hours of 10 o'clock in the evening of the twenty-fifth of February, 1884, and 6 o'clock in the morning of the following day, thereby violating the provisions of section 4 of the ordinance. The petition for the writ of habeas corpus presented to the judges of the circuit court sets forth the arrest and detention of the petitioner by the chief of police, the ordinance under which the arrest was made, the complaint before the police judge, and the issue of the warrant under which he was taken into custody. It then proceeds to state that the petitioner has for several years been engaged in working for hire in a public laundry in the city and county of San Francisco, and has, in all respects, complied with the laws of the United States and of California, and the ordinances of the city and county, except in washing at the hours mentioned; that the business of carrying on a laundry is a lawful one, in which a large number of the subjects of the emperor of China have been and are engaged in the said city and county within the limits prescribed by the ordinance; that there have been for several years great antipathy and hatred on the part of the residents of that city and county against the subjects of China residing and doing business there; that such antipathy and hatred have manifested themselves in various ways and under various forms for the purpose of compelling the subjects of China to quit and abandon their business and residence in the city and county and state; that owing to that feeling, and not otherwise, and not for any sanitary, police, or other legitimate purpose, but in order to force those subjects engaged in carrying on the business of a laundry in the city and county of San Francisco to abandon the exercise of their lawful vocation, and their only means of livelihood, the supervisors passed the ordinance in question; that the petitioner has been and is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
413 cases
  • Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc., Nos. 73588
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1991
    ...Moines Navigation & Railway Co., 142 U.S. 510, 544-45, 12 S.Ct. 308, 317-18, 35 L.Ed. 1099 (1892); Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 710-11, 5 S.Ct. 730, 734-35, 28 L.Ed. 1145 (1885); State ex rel. City of Creve Coeur v. Weinstein, 329 S.W.2d 399, 406 (Mo.App.1960). The reasons for this r......
  • Quick Chek Food Stores v. Springfield Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1980
    ...311, 300 A.2d 195, citing approvingly Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 5 S.Ct. 357, 28 L.Ed. 923 (1885), and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145 (1885), which upheld ordinances of the City of San Francisco closing laundries located in certain districts at night b......
  • Pearce v. Moffatt
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1939
    ... ... Connolly, 113 U.S ... 27, 5 S.Ct. 357, 28 L.Ed. 923, and Soon Hing v ... Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145. In ... the latter case Mr. [60 ... ...
  • Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1903
    ... ... 463); Barbier v ... Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (5 S.Ct. 357; 28 L. Ed., 923); ... Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 (5 S.Ct. 730; 28 ... L. Ed., 1145.) The case was reaffirmed in ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Stanford Law & Policy Review Vol. 33 No. 2, June 2022
    • June 22, 2022
    ...laws were consolidated in the General Laws of 1932."). (29.) See Lawrence-Hammer, supra note 6, at 1277. (30.) See Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, 710-11 (1884) (stating that Blue Laws were a valid police objective and therefore valid under the (31.) 113 U.S. 703 (1884). (32.) Id. at 71......
  • Sunday law in the nineteenth century.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 64 No. 2, December 2000
    • December 22, 2000
    ...legislature's police power). (29) See Raucher, supra note 1, at 18-19 (quoting Justice Stephen Field, who stated, in Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 (1885), that "`[l]aws setting aside Sunday as a day of rest are upheld ... from [the government's] right to protect all persons from the ph......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT