From legendary short seller to god of American capital

Chapter 345 Judicial Storm: Gambling with Money for Justice

Chapter 345 Judicial Storm: Gambling with Money for Justice

On July 2, 1892, after two postponements, the trial of Huang Meitang, a Chinese man in Boston, for accidental murder finally began.

Under the Massachusetts legal system, felonies such as accidental homicide must be tried in the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

At that time, in the common law system of New England, the unjustifiable acts that caused the death of another person—including manslaughter, death due to negligence in construction, and other involuntary manslaughter—were all considered felonies.

Even if the defendant claims it was purely accidental, if the prosecution believes there was gross negligence or illegal conduct, it can constitute an indictable offense and must be tried in the High Court.

The Supreme Court is the only trial court in Massachusetts that provides a 12-person jury for felony cases. Since Huang Meitang's case involves murder, a jury trial will inevitably be required.

Interestingly, Boston is part of Suffolk County, so the courthouse's actual name is the Suffolk County Superior Court, located in the old courthouse building on Courthouse Street in downtown Boston. It is adjacent to another well-known Suffolk County Jail.

At ten o'clock in the morning, towering sycamore trees cast a huge shade outside the Suffolk County Superior Court, their shadows looming over the solemn marble walls, making the court appear even more dignified and solemn.

The Huang Meitang case has attracted a lot of attention from the beginning. This Chinese laundry worker accidentally intervened in a dispute between Irish people in a Chinese restaurant, which led to the latter's death.

According to the forensic examination, the deceased Irishman died from hitting his temple on the copper-clad corner of the hardwood corner.

Fossac County District Attorney Horace Barrett filed charges against Huang Meitang, requesting a death sentence by hanging for involuntary manslaughter. Evidence presented by the prosecution included witness testimonies and the deceased's autopsy report.

At that moment, Irish prosecutor Mr. Barrett sat in the prosecution seat in the courtroom, looking very serious.

In response to the prosecution's charges, the defense attorney, Yung Wing, offered a different opinion. He argued that the victim's death was purely accidental, and Huang Meitang acted solely in self-defense. He asserted that Huang neither foresaw nor contributed to the victim's death. Therefore, he believed Huang Meitang should be acquitted.

Before the trial began, the courtroom was packed with people. Harvard Law School sent a large delegation to observe the proceedings. Criminal law professor James Bradley Thayer personally led a team of 15 judicial observers, comprised of Harvard Law School faculty and students, to sit in the courtroom.

Seated in the presiding judge's seat was Edward Howe, an old-school New England gentleman known for his adherence to procedural justice. He knew that this case had transcended the ordinary, becoming a touchstone for testing the true nature of the rule of law in Massachusetts.

During the jury selection process, the judge excluded anyone who had signed any anti-China petitions or was affiliated with the Irish Labour Association. The judge also warned the media against journalists promoting the notion that Chinese people are dangerous, stating that violators would be considered in contempt of court.

The judge also personally oversaw the exchange of evidence to ensure that the prosecution did not conceal testimony favorable to the defendant.

The 12 jurors, seated in the jury box, were isolated yesterday in the East Wing of the courthouse. They come from different social classes, yet share a common prejudice of their time. They firmly believe in equality before the law, yet also acknowledge the fact that "if a Chinese person had died in this case, they wouldn't feel any anger."

The trial began, and District Attorney Barrett's strategy was clear and ruthless.

He admitted that the deceased, Tom, struck first, but immediately emphasized, "Huang Meitang could have backed down, but he chose to escalate the violence, which is the root cause of the death!"

Next, the prosecutor repeatedly used terms such as "outsider" and "community threat" in the indictment to imply to the judge and jurors that the case concerned the safety of white workers.

When it was the prosecutor's turn to present a witness, instead of having the eyewitness appear first, the prosecutor brought out Tom's elderly mother.

The elderly Irish woman's sobs in court silenced the entire courtroom so deeply that you could hear a pin drop.

When it came to the defense lawyer's turn, Yung Wing did not respond to the poignant accusations, but instead did only three things.

First, through Robert's testimony, other witnesses at the Chinese restaurant, and physical evidence, the truth that the incident occurred as a case of continuous self-defense was reconstructed.

Second, the forensic pathologist from Harvard Law School was commissioned to re-evaluate the deceased's blood alcohol concentration and reconstruct the restaurant's furniture layout.

He even brought in a heavy wooden table with copper corners to recreate the actual situation in court.

Third, Yung Wing collected the deceased's history of repeatedly violating public order regulations, causing trouble for the Chinese community, and numerous anti-Chinese remarks.

Yung Wing's goal was to reconstruct the undeniable timeline and physical facts of that time.

In response to the prosecutor's charges, Yung Wing said only one sentence: "Your Honor, gentlemen of the jury, if the law only protects the fear of white people and not the lives of Chinese people, then the Declaration of Independence is nothing but a piece of waste paper."

As he spoke, Yung Wing glanced at the jury seats, calmly scrutinizing the 12 jurors. He knew that to win this trial, he had to first shatter their prejudices against Chinese people.

Justice has not yet been served, but thunder is already gathering in the clouds.

Meanwhile, starting in late June, news of a betting ticket began circulating in the streets of New York and Boston.

The "Huang Meitang case outcome betting ticket" has been officially listed on the over-the-counter market.

The stock, issued by an anonymous consortium, represents YES bonds that promise an acquittal in the Huang Meitang case, with initial odds of 1 to 3.

The initial odds for the N0 bond, betting on a guilty verdict in the Suffolk County Superior Court case against Chinese-American Huang Meitang for involuntary manslaughter, were 1 to 0.5.

This stock was unprecedented because it securitized a judicial ruling. Initially, New York's underground brokers and gamblers scoffed at the idea of ​​a betting ticket.

"A Chinese person commits murder and expects to get away with it? He's dreaming! Why not make this money?" That's what many people say when buying NO bonds.

News of the judicial betting scheme spread like wildfire through bars on Broadway, the Lower East Side, and the outskirts of Chinatown. Dockworkers, gamblers, and small business owners flocked to billiard halls across the area, buying up large quantities of NO bonds.

At the makeshift counter, people shouted as they bought things, "Damn Chinese, they're like rats in the New York sewers, I bet they'll be hanged!"

Give me ten "no" cards!

"I want 50 bills. I bet he'll definitely be hanged!"

"Those yellow-skinned monkeys can't even speak English; the judge finds them disgusting!"

No one believed the YES bonds would win. In the eyes of New Yorkers, Chinese people were just coolies, and coolies were an inferior race.

The power of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act remains strong, and this year's upgraded version is even more so. Newspapers have long portrayed the Chinese as "treacherous, cunning, and morally corrupt!"

So, a laundry worker dares to kill a white man? Whatever the truth is, he must, and inevitably will, die!

In short, after the stock was issued, no bonds were extremely sought after, while yes bonds became a laughing stock in the downtown area.

The situation in Boston is slightly different.

The case has garnered significant attention due to the presence of Harvard faculty and students. Furthermore, it has also attracted considerable interest from self-proclaimed progressive lawyers, abolitionist veterans, and the Chinese community.

When news of the gambling ticket broke, The Boston Globe, in its editorial reporting on the trial, specifically commented on the case, asking, "When justice has been put on the market, have we become gamblers?"

Some people bought Yes bonds out of a sense of moral obligation. The Chinese community, on the other hand, pooled together $2000 and had all its members purchase Yes bonds as a way of supporting their fellow countrymen.

In Boston, sales of no-bonds remain brisk, but not as overwhelmingly as in New York.

Others, while not appearing in court or buying tickets, began to follow the case in their own ways.

Lucy Stone was one of the most influential feminist activists in the United States and a spiritual leader of the New England feminist movement.

Mrs. Stone was not only a pioneer in advocating for women's suffrage, but also an abolitionist, a champion of racial equality, and a defender of justice.

The old woman was 74 years old and not in very good health, but her mind was still very sharp.

He personally drafted an open letter, which was published in the Women's Magazine, which he co-founded with his daughter. At the time, it was the largest-circulation and most authoritative women's rights publication in the United States, headquartered in Boston.

Mrs. Stone was a staunch opponent of the Chinese Exclusion Act, believing that excluding any ethnic group was a betrayal of the founding principles of the United States.

At the end of her open letter, Mrs. Stone concluded, "If Black people cannot vote, then white women will not have the right to vote either; if Chinese people are considered inferior, then the freedom of all people is threatened."

A nation founded on freedom that refuses to grant immigrants basic human rights because of their skin color is a desecration of the Declaration of Independence. Fellow countrymen, America is America for Americans, and justice is indivisible!

Lucy Stone's remarks quickly sparked discussion in the salons of Boston's high society.

An elderly woman with silver hair put down her copy of "Women's Magazine" and spoke to her friend beside her.

"They say those Chinese laundry workers killed someone, but the only evidence is the identification by another drunkard. All the Chinese are attesting that the dead Irishman died by running his head against the corner of a table."

"You're right. I've heard that someone is using underground gambling tickets to uphold fairness and justice! It must be some kind-hearted gentleman who's taken pity on me," my friend replied.

Upon hearing the news, the silver-haired old woman took a pen, signed her name on the check, and then handed it to the servant.

"Buy me 100 Yes bonds. This isn't speculation; it's voting. I want to see how much conscience this country has left."

The maid took the check and asked in a low voice, "Madam, do you really believe that Chinese man is innocent?"

"I don't trust him; I trust the law. If even the law bows to prejudice, what's the point of the women's suffrage we fought for?"

Another force contributing to the Boston trend was actually 717-Eleven convenience stores.

On the surface, they only sell coffee, milk tea, cigarettes, and groceries. But attentive customers who frequent the convenience stores will easily notice that in the past week, a thin "Municipal Event Risk Briefing" has appeared under the tobacco counter in each store.

If a customer asks what it is, the shop assistant simply shrugs and replies, "Oh, that's for merchants who are canceling orders, like predicting whether there will be a strike at the docks or changes in tariffs, so they can decide whether to stock up in advance —"

If customers wanted more details, the staff would mysteriously say, "This information is quite useful; many people use it to hedge risks—you ask what hedging means? Oh, for example, the recent case of the Chinese man being killed, which concerns whether Chinatown will descend into chaos. This case entirely depends on the jury's mood. Smart people are betting that Harvard Law School is here to turn the tide this time—"

Then, the clerk would point to the small print on the back of the clipping: "This issue's focus: Fussack County Superior Court v. Huang Meitang case."

Market sentiment index: no 86%, yes 14%. Delivery agent locations, see reverse side.

The briefing listed five addresses, all of which were the fastest places to buy gambling tickets.

Using this method, over 32000 betting tickets were distributed in just five days. Most people still bought "no" bonds, but a small minority bought "yes" bonds.

Most of those who believe that Chinese people can be exonerated are from the lower rungs of society. They not only gamble for the rich rewards they will receive, but also project the social injustices they have witnessed and felt over the years onto that small gambling ticket.

What's even more interesting is that, regardless of whether it's "no" or "yes," each betting ticket has a line of small print printed on the back.

Justice may remain silent, but the market will never lie.

Those who bought the tickets spread the news like it was news. Almost overnight, Bostonians were all paying attention to this strange case.

Inside the tavern, a drunkard pointed at the corner of a table and shouted, "Damn it, get rid of these lousy tables! Covering the corner with such a huge brass plate, are you trying to make us die like that Irish bastard, without even knowing why?"

In the grocery store, housewives chatted amongst themselves while buying coffee, "Did you hear? The Chinese just gave it a light push, they didn't even lift a finger—"

Even the elementary school students at school are talking about it. "My mom said that if that Chinese guy didn't do anything wrong and is innocent, we should support him!"

Even the hotel staff at Harvard Law School were gossiping, "Do even the professors believe the Chinese are innocent?"

"The odds seem to have changed! Is there new evidence?"

"I'll bet five dollars and give it a try. I think it's more reliable than the lottery."

"Where to buy gambling tickets? Just go to a 717-Eleven convenience store—we not only gather information there, but we also buy gambling tickets there."

Convenience stores have become the premier information hub for legal betting in New England. The latest odds are updated in real time here. Interested individuals can easily purchase betting tickets near a convenience store.

For most people who can only afford five dollars, it's better to gamble big than to gamble safe!

Because they bought "yes" bonds with higher odds, they began to believe that the Chinese were absolutely innocent and started spreading this view widely within their social circles.

Back to Wall Street in downtown New York.

In the manager's office at Goldman Sachs, Henry Goldman was frowning as he analyzed the latest news. While reviewing the briefing, he was also making calculations on a piece of paper with a pen in hand.

An assistant knocked on his door. "Mr. Goldman, the carriage has been arranged and is waiting for you downstairs. When will you be visiting Mr. Livingston?"

"Wait a moment—" Gao Man waved her hand, her eyes still focused on the paper filled with data.

"—The acquittal rate for manslaughter cases in Suffolk County over the past five years is approximately 41%—Harvard Law School has issued a public statement—These odds are really interesting! Which big bookmaker is manipulating this?"

After talking to himself while looking at the data, Goldman turned his gaze to a yes bond and a no bond on the table, a smile playing on his lips.

"Currently, the implicit win rate for 'no' bonds has reached 87%, and for 'yes' bonds it's 43%. The total probability is now 130%? That's absurd. This proves that the market sentiment premium is as high as 30%, with everyone betting on the convict side—"

The true probability of a "yes" bond winning is at least 50%, but the market only values ​​it at 43%, plus a hefty 30% emotional tax—meaning "yes" bonds are severely undervalued—interesting!

The assistant, noticing the page filled with dense calculations, glanced at Goldman curiously. But Goldman only smiled strangely and continued muttering to himself, "—The best part is that the betting tickets will suffer from a liquidity crunch. No bonds will be in high demand, yes bonds will be unwanted, which means buying them will almost never be expensive—well, this is a good deal—"

After thinking for a moment, Henry Goldman took an envelope from his desk drawer, put cash inside, and handed it to his assistant.

"I secretly bought 2 'yes bonds' at the billiards hall. See, those are the 'yes bonds' from this betting ticket!"

As he spoke, Henry Goldman handed the betting slip to his assistant.

The assistant paused, startled upon seeing the betting slip, and asked, "Sir, do you really believe that Chinese man is innocent?"

Henry Goldman was already packing his bags and putting on his top hat. After listening to his assistant's words, he nonchalantly remarked, "I don't trust people, I trust odds. When the market starts pricing based on bias, mathematics is the most honest bookmaker."

Go ahead and buy 2 copies for me.

The assistant muttered something, nodded in agreement, and handed Goman the real estate presentation he had prepared.

Goldman took the document, quickly glanced at it, nodded, and said, "I'm going to visit Mr. Livingston now. He's waiting for my good news—and he was right, that old spendthrift really is planning to keep selling off his land—"