Justice of the Peace Demmon to Governor Markham .

Dear Sir: In reply to your letter requesting information relative to Chinese merchants having been outraged, robbed, and murdered recently at Vallejo, I would respectfully state the following facts, out of which the charge has probably grown: On the night of July 4 a fire was discovered in a building occupied by a Chinese merchant. While the local firemen were engaged in extinguishing the flames, it is alleged that a quantity of the merchandise was stolen. L. G. Harrier, the assistant district attorney of Solano County, immediately began an investigation, resulting in a complaint being sworn to and warrant of arrest issued for one Wilson Anderson (negro) upon a charge of arson, and at the hearing held before me as justice of the peace on July 18, 1891, the district attorney of Solano County, O. P. Dobbins, Assistant District Attorney L. G. Harrier, and George A. Lamont, the latter being specially retained to assist the prosecution on behalf of the Chinese, were present. At the request of the attorneys for the prosecution the case was continued until July 22, 1891, for the purpose of enabling them to secure desired evidence, and again continued until July 25, 1891, at which time there not being sufficient to warrant the detention of the accused, on motion of the attorney for the defendant, the district attorney being present and acquiescing, the case was dismissed and the defendant discharged. On July 16, 1891, as a further result of the investigation of the assistant district attorney, a complaint was made charging twelve young men with the crime of robbery, a warrant was issued thereon, and the accused arrested and brought into court, and, owing to the fact that the prosecution is entirely without evidence to substantiate the charge, no further proceedings have been had.

On July 19, 1891, between 9 and 10 o’clock at night, another fire was discovered in a building occupied by Chinese and adjoining the one where the fire occurred on July 4. This fire consumed the building, which was not the case with the previous one, and it was afterwards learned that a Chinese child about 3 years of age was burned to death. With reference to the origin of the fire on July 19, 1891, I would state that I have heard of no charge of its being incendiary having been made, and would explain that the charge of arson with reference to the first fire was based upon circumstances which occurred after the fire was in reality extinguished, it being alleged that the person arrested was engaged in endeavoring to rekindle the fire.

In conclusion, I would state that, while it is possible some merchandise may have been carried off during the confusion incident to a fire, I am positive that the other charges of outrages and murder are entirely without foundation.

Yours, very truly,

G. C. Demmon,
Justice of the Peace.