District Attorney Dobbins to Governor Markham .
Sir: Your favor of 25th instant, containing a copy of telegram received by you from the Acting Secretary of State at Washington, in which it is stated that the Chinese consul-general at San Francisco has complained to the Department of State at Washington “that Chinese merchants at Vallejo have recently been outraged, robbed, and murdered, and urging the Department to request of you due protection for Chinese subjects,” has been duly received. In reply will say, that as prosecuting officer of this county I had thoroughly examined into the matter complained of before receiving your communication, and the facts, briefly stated, are about as follows:
About 11 o’clock on the evening of July 4 a fire broke out in a house in Vallejo occupied by Chinese as a store and wash house. The origin of the fire is unknown, the Chinese themselves making no claim that it was incendiary. As soon as the alarm was sounded the fire company of Vallejo responded, but by the time they arrived there the fire had been about extinguished by the Chinese and other persons who in the meantime had collected there. The house where the fire caught is a very low one-story shanty and is situated in the very heart of the city. While the house was burning the front door was broken open by a person whom the testimony showed was a fireman, and a number of people entered the building, and a good deal of stuff was taken from the house and carried into the street to save it from burning, and, as I understand, was afterwards burned up either accidentally or on purpose, and without doubt a good deal of damage was done them according to the testimony of the Chinese, but it is hard to say whether designedly or accidentally.
According to the testimony of the Chinese, about ten minutes after the fire mentioned above was extinguished a number of persons entered the house and began pulling out drawers and opening boxes and rifling them of their contents, and one of the persons, a negro man, they say, attempted to set fire to the house. The negro was arrested for arson on the complaint of the Chinese, and his examination was set for Monday, the 20th of this month, before a justice of the peace in Vallejo.
In the meantime the Chinese also had seven or eight young men, residents of Vallejo, arrested for robbing alleged to have been committed at the same time. The Chinese employed special counsel here at Fairfield to assist in the prosecution of these cases. On the 20th instant the special counsel and myself represented the State at the examination of the person charged with arson, and a thorough examination was had of the entire matter, both as to the charge of arson and the charge of robbery. The attorney who represented the defendant made no objection to the course pursued by us. There were but two witnesses for the State to any material facts or who could identify the party whom they claimed attempted to set the fire or who committed the robbery. Against these two Chinese witnesses were a number of white witnesses, who swore positively that the parties whom it was alleged were in the house at the time of the robbery were not there at all. At the time that the two Chinese say that the robbery was committed, damage done, etc., there were a number of Chinese in the house, besides the white men who were there, and there is nothing to show but that they were as much interested in the robbery of the storekeeper as anyone else. After a thorough examination of the case on the 20th, the court suggested that, unless further testimony was produced by the State connecting the defendant with the alleged offense, he would be compelled to dismiss him. The further hearing of the case was then continued until Wednesday, 22d instant, to give the prosecution further opportunity to produce testimony. On that day the special counsel for the Chinese from Fairfield did not attend the examination, having seemingly abandoned the prosecution. And when the case was called on Wednesday, 22d instant, another special counsel from San Francisco appeared to assist the prosecution, who, after looking around Vallejo for awhile, returned from where he came, and the case was again continued to Saturday, 25th instant, to still give the State time to procure further proof. On that day I attended before the magistrate at Vallejo, and, neither of the special counsel appearing and there being no further testimony produced, the case against the defendant was dismissed by the court.
The case of robbery is still pending against the young men, and as soon as the special counsel for the Chinese are ready the charges against them will be duly investigated in a court of law.
On the 19th of this month, at about 9 o’clock in the evening, another fire broke out in a house occupied by Chinese, adjacent to the house which caught fire the night of July 4. When discovered the fire was coming through the roof from the inside of the house. No one was in or near the house, as far as can be ascertained, but Chinese; the house was entirely consumed, and a Chinese infant was burned to death in the building. No claim is made by anyone, to my knowledge, that the fire was incendiary. The belief of everyone to whom I have spoken about the matter is [Page 464] that a Chinese woman was smoking opium and fell asleep while so doing, and that the fire caught in the bed clothes from her pipe, and that idea is borne out by the fact that the fire started from the inside of the house and from her room. The claim of the Chinese consul that anyone was murdered is not true. No life was lost except that of the child above mentioned.
In the arson case the facts of both cases were necessarily brought out, and were thoroughly investigated by the tribunal provided by the law of this State for that purpose, and the court has officially said in the arson case that there was not sufficient cause from the testimony adduced to believe the defendant guilty of a public offense, and also intimated to the prosecution that if the proof was the same in the robbery cases, he would feel it to be his duty to dismiss them also.
Respectfully, etc.,
District Attorney, Solano County.