People v. Hall
“Now why is it that, when our people come to your country, instead of being welcomed with unusual respect and kindness, on the contrary they are treated with unusual contempt and evil? Hence many lose their lives at the hands of lawless wretches. Yet though there be Chinese witnesses of the crime, their testimony is rejected.” - Pun Chi c. 1860, in reaction to People v. Hall
—
In 1852, George Hall was convicted of murdering Ling Sing, a Chinese miner who came during the height of the California Gold Rush. The conviction was unique at the time because the basis of testimony came from Chinese workers and witnesses. Three Chinese witnesses testified in the case, and Hall was charged with murder and sentenced to death. A year later, Hall appealed the case to a higher court, citing an act that asserted “no black or mulatto person, or Indian, shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man." Hall claimed that this act extended to the Chinese as well.
This led the California Supreme Court case People v. Hall. The decision reversed the ruling against Hall and effectively freed him from all of his convictions. The language in the case, delivered by Hugh Murray, contained some of the strongest language against the Chinese and for white supremacy. Some of these include:
-
“[The Chinese are] a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point.”
-
“... the apparent design [of Section 394 of the Act Concerning Civil Cases] 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.”
People v. Hall ruled that any testimony against white people made by non-white people cannot be accepted in court. There were laws in place to exclude testimony by black and Indian people against white people, but this ruling extended it explicitly to say any non-white testimony is nullified against white people. The ruling marks prevailing white supremacy sentiments not only across California but throughout the United States. Creating a dichotomy where people of different races have different levels of testimony and evidence provides a vessel for one people to have more rights and privileges than those of another.
—
Sources and additional materials: