All posts by Trish Hackett Nicola

Rev. Shiu Chiu Yiu – Vancouver, BC; Los Angeles, CA; Portland, OR

nonquota visa, Photographs, reference sheet, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In September 1925, C. Y. Shiu, age 37, applied to the American Consular Service at Vancouver, British Columbia for a nonquota immigration visa. He was 37 years old and was born at Canton, China. He had lived in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada since 1920 and was a Methodist minister. He had eight children, Mary, age 11, born in China, and seven younger sons all born in Canada. His church would be paying for the family’s passage from Vancouver, B. C. to Los Angeles, and they expected him to minister to his congregation for about five years.

His birth certificate, a letter of recommendation, a letter from his church and his Section 6 certificate were reviewed by Immigration and his application was approved and his photo was attached to the form.

Shui was ordained as a minister in the Methodist Church at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in June 1922 and a member of the British Columbia Conference since 1923. Rev. S. S. Osterhout, Superintendent of Methodist Oriental Missions in Canada, confirmed that Shui had been a missionary for the past nine years and a member in good standing. A letter from Rev. D. H. Klinefelter, superintendent of Pacific Coast Methodist Episcopal Chinese Missions, confirmed Shui’s transfer to Los Angeles and Pasadena with a salary of $100 per month and a house to live in.

In his letter of recommendation, George Bell stated that Shui carried out his missionary duties faithfully in Kamloops and the District of North Saskatchewan for nine years.
The nonquota visa issued to Shiu Chiu Yiu contained photos of him, his wife, and their eight children.

“Shiu family photos,” 1925, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Shiu Chiu Yiu, Rev., Box 858, file 7031/581.

Top row: Tai Duck, wife; Rev. Shiu Chiu Yiu, baby Andrew (b. 1925)
Middle row: Paul (b. 1917), Timothy (b. 1923), Luke (b. 1922)
Bottom row: Peter (b. 1919), Mary (b. 1914), John (b. 1920), overlap: James (b. 1921)

The family arrived at the Port of Seattle on 26 September 1925 and were admitted.
In his Board of Special Inquiry interview, Shiu testified that his marriage name was See Wai and that he was born on 1 October 1888 in Canton, China. His parents were David Shiu and Leong Shee. He had one brother and three sisters. His mother had died but his father and sisters were all living in China. His brother, Shiu Chiu Chung, a Presbyterian minister, was living in Winnipeg, Canada. After their arrival was approved, the family left for Los Angeles on the Princess Marguerite.

The ship must have stopped in San Francisco. Although Shiu intending to on going to Los Angeles, he found out he was needed in San Francisco. He and his family were there three years, then went to Sacramento for five years and had been in Portland for two years. In 1935, his salary was $120 a month.

In 1935, Shui applied for a reentry permit. It was approved, and he spent two weeks in Canada.
In June 1937, Shiu Chiu Yiu and his daughter, Shui Kuo Ying (Mary Shiu) applied for re-entry permits. Shui gave his marriage name as Chew Lui. By then he had ten children, eight living. His sons John and Andrew had died. His children Thomas and Ruth were born in California. Shiu’s wife and the children were living in Portland, Oregon. Mary, now 23 years old, was going to China to teach for two years. She graduated from Albany College in June 1936 and her father had been teaching her Chinese. Mary had a separate file, 4009/1-3. Her father planned to go to with her as far as Vancouver, Canada and then return to Portland within two months. Mary presented her diplomas from Albany College in Albany, Oregon; Oregon State Teachers Certificate, Sacramento High School, and Junior High School in Sacramento. Their reentry permits were approved.

Shiu Chiu Yiu returned to Portland in August 1937 and was admitted.

The reference sheet in the file gives the file numbers for his wife, eight sons, one daughter, and his brother.

Mai Euon Lam – Portland trained fighter pilot

photo, Return Permit, Section 6 Student, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 1922 Lam Mai (Mai Euon Lam) arrived in Seattle from China with his mother, brother and his brother’s family. Lam Mai’s file contains his Section 6 Student visa with his photo, giving his date of birth as 13 December 1913 at Tai Ling village, Toishan district, China. His father died about 1918. He was admitted as a student at the Port of Seattle in December 1922. He was nine years old.

“Section 6 Student Visa, Mai Euon Lam,” 1922, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Mai Euon Lam file, Seattle, 7032/2234.

Since he was so young, his brother, Lam Yuk Tsun, filled out the paperwork for him. His brother was a college student, and his sister-in-law, Chan Kim Ho, was a practicing physician. They lived in Tacoma, Washington. Lam Mai went to school at Central Public School, until he moved to Portland, Oregon. He graduated from Lincoln High School in June 1931 and attended North Pacific College, majoring in pharmacy. In February 1932, Lam Mai applied for a return permit as a student for a trip to China. One of his teachers was a witness for him. Charles W. Abbott testified that Lam Mai was a very good student, and he did not know why he left school.

“Return Permit, Mai Euon Lam,” 1933, CEA files, RG 85
NARA-Seattle, Mai Euon Lam file, Seattle, 7032/2234.

Lam Mai’s reason for leaving his pharmacy studies is not mentioned in his file but findings through additional research show that he left to attend pilot training school at Swan Island airport in Portland, Oregon. The Adcox School of Aviation in Portland trained thirty-six pilots over two terms. Most of them went to China and flew for the Chinese Air Force after Japan’s attack on Manchuria. By 1937 Lam Mai was a chief test pilot for the Chinese central government air force.
   In letters to his brother Y.T. Lam, a Portland naturopath, Mai recounted some of the heroic acts of his pilot school classmates, John Key Wong (a.k.a. Wong Pan-Yang, Hwang Pan-Yang), Arthur Chin and others. All together the Portland-trained pilots shot down more than sixty Japanese planes.
   Sadly, Lam Mai was shot down over Nanchong, China, in December 1937 and died from his injuries. File numbers for his mother, brother, and sister-in-law are included in the file.

To find out more about the Chinese pilots training program in Portland in the 1930s go to my article, “I think I am going to fly: Chinese Pilots Trained in Portland During the 1930s,” Oregon Historical Quarterly, Winter 2021, p532-542.

Hui Hin, minor son of merchant in Spokane

Application for laborer's return certificate, Application for Pre-investigation Status, Application for return certificate as merchant, Disapproved status, laborer, Lengthy Interrogation, manual labor, merchant, student, , , , , , , , ,

In 1936 Hui Cheung, Hui Hin’s father, wanted his son to visit China for a few months before returning to Spokane, Washington. His status would be as the son of a merchant. As the laws became stricter on Chinese immigration, it became harder for a merchant to prove his status as a merchant. Although in many cases, Hui Hin’s father, Hui Cheung, would probably have been thought of as a merchant, a strict reading of the Act put him in the manufacturing category and therefore a laborer. Being a merchant would have most likely assured his son’s readmittance to the United States.
   Hui Hin was originally admitted to the United States at the Port of Seattle on 12 December 1927 as a student and the minor son of Hui Cheung, a merchant at Wing Wo Chinese Medicine Company in Spokane, Washington. Hui Hin was nine years old. He settled in, was called by the American name, Bill Huie, and attended school at Hawthorne School, Washington School, and Louis & Clark High School in Spokane.

“Hui Hin Affidavit photo,” 1927, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Hui Hin file, Seattle Box 860, 7031/636.

   Cheung started the paperwork to get approval for the trip. Two white witnesses swore that Hui Cheung was a merchant. Hui Hin’s application for predetermination of his status as the minor son of merchant was disapproved and his right of appeal to the local Secretary of Labor was disapproved by the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at Seattle on the grounds that Hui Cheung is not a merchant within the meaning of the law and regulations but was engaged in manufacturing but he did have the right to appeal to the Secretary of Labor in Washington, D.C.
   On the day Immigrant Inspector Herbert Nice stopped in to observe the Wing Wo Chinese Medicine Company he found Hui Cheung washing medicine bottles in the sink. Cheung said it was because regular clerk was at lunch. The inspector verified that it was lunch time. Next, Inspector Nice found herbs cooking on the stove in the kitchen. Cheung said that was also the duty of the clerk who was at lunch. Nice asked Hui Cheung to explain the company’s process of making the medicine. Cheung said the medicinal herbs were sent from China to San Francisco, then shipped to Spokane. One of the clerks would cook the herbs to make the medicines. Dr. Hui Yut Seng, the other partner in the company, would see the patient and prescribe the medicine. The clerk would fix the medicine and give it to the patient. Inspector Nice concluded that Hui Cheung was engaged in manual labor and that his application should be denied.    Hui Cheung swore in an affidavit that he was one of the partners and owners of the Wing Wo Chinese Medicine Company on Wall Street in Spokane. He had been a partner since 1918 and had not engaged in manual labor of any kind.  
   Hui Hin was interviewed twice in 1936 about his life in his village in China before he came to the U.S. when he was nine years old. There were six pages of questions about his deceased grandparents, where they were buried, number of houses in his village, where the front door of their house was located, the size of doors, what were they made of, he was asked to draw a diagram of his village, tell how many rooms in his house, color of tile floor, if there was a courtyard, any skylights, a rice mill, rice pounder, any pictures, a balcony, any clocks, where everyone slept, who lived in the houses in the village, who lived in the first house in the fourth row, how far away was the school, were there gardens or farms, what did they grow, was there a river or steam, any bridges, where was the market, how old when your father visited, (He was 7 or 8), and about three more pages of questions. He did not know many of the answers. His answers were compared to his 1928 interview. The Immigration Inspector also had some doubts that Hui Hin was Hui Cheung’s son. Hui Hin could not remember his mother’s name, the names of his grandparents and various neighbors, or details about his home and village. Hui Hin was nine when he entered this country, and it was now eight years later. He may have been nervous about the interview. He knew how important it was to get everything correct. It was understandable that he would not remember his village and classmates in great detail.
   Immigration reviewed Hui Cheung file. Hui Cheung had made two trips to China as a laborer. The interviewer noted that one of his trips shows him being admitted in April 1918 which would have made it possible for him to “render his paternity of the applicant possible.”
   When Hui Cheung returned from his 1927 trip to China, he and his witnesses had lengthy interrogations. Clearly, Immigration was not comfortable about Hui Cheung current status as a merchant or that Hui Hin was his son. Cheung answers were not always consistent from one trip to the next. In 1918 he stated that he had two sons and a daughter. In 1927 he says he never had a daughter or any children that died.
   Hui Hin did not make his 1936 trip to China. His application was disapproved, and no appeal was filed.

“Ad for Wing Wo Chinese Medicine Co.,” Sanders County Ledger, Thompson Falls, MT 11 Nov 1932 p3, Newspapers_com

Sullivan T. Mar – Diplomat/Student

Correspondence, diplomatic passport, passport, Seattle Daily Times, Sec. 13 Dipomat, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Sullivan T. Mar, a Chinese citizen, entered the United States in 1927 his status was as a student with a diplomatic passport.

This section of the Chinese Exclusion Act applied to him:
SEC.13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned and shall exempt them and their body and house- hold servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.1

Sullivan T. Mar (Teh-Chien Mar) was the Chancellor of Chinese Consulate in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  On 11 January 1927 he traveled from Vancouver by train stopping in Blaine, Washington before arriving in Seattle. He was thirty-one years old and was born in Foochow, China. He had a diplomatic passport issued by the Chinese Consulate in Vancouver and a U.S. passport issued by the American Consulate General. According to the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, D.C. since Mar was admitted as an official, he was not required to comply with the rules governing alien students even though he had originally been admitted as a student at the University of Washington.

Mar made a short visit to Vancouver on 17 July 1928. The Immigration Service office in Seattle gave him a one-page certificate for identification. It contained his photo and signature and was only valid for one week for his readmission through the Port of Seattle. It could not be used as a certificate of residence or certificate of landing. He returned the next day and was admitted with his diplomatic passport.

Immigration Service Correspondence, Re: Sullivan T. Mar,” 1928, CEA, NARA Sea, Seattle Box 837, file 7031/120
“Immigration Service Correspondence, Re: Sullivan T. Mar,” 1928, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Sullivan T. Mar, Seattle Box 837, file 7031/120

Although there is no more official immigration activity in Sullivan T. Mar’s file, an undated newspaper clipping was inserted into his file. Mar wrote to the editor of the Seattle Daily Times regarding the September 1931 Japanese Imperial Army invasion of Manchuria, China.

Japan had suffered heavy financial losses from the 1929 Great Depression and Manchuria was rich in natural resources, forests and fertile farmland. Japan had already invested in Manchurian railroads and wanted to expand their holdings in China. These activities led to the 2nd Sino-Japanese War which began in 1937 when China began full-scale resistance to the expansion of Japanese influence in its territory.2

Mar wrote a letter to the editor because he disagreed with a speech Dr. Herbert H. Gowan had given on 18 December 1931 at the Lions’ Club concluding that Japan’s military activities were not an act of aggression. Mar was a former student of Dr. Gowan at the University of Washington. He respected Gowan’s knowledge of “Orient history” but thought Gowan was ill-informed about the current conditions. Mar listed six points of disagreement in Dr. Gowan’s stance.  Mar listed Japan’s 1915 Twenty-0ne Demands, the large number of troops entering Manchuria, President Wilson’s response to the demands, Japan’s demand that China recognize the demands, Japan setting up a puppet government in Mukden, and Dr. Gowan presumption that he had more knowledge of the situation than the United States government and League of Nations. Mar suggested American business interests should consult with the reports on file at the State Department and the Department of Commerce for a history of Japan’s activities to control trade in Manchuria.

Letters From Times Readers: Japan Intentions,” Seattle Daily Times, Seattle, WA, 31 December 1931, p6.
“Letters From Times Readers: Japan Intentions,” Seattle Daily Times, Seattle, WA, 31 December 1931, p6.

He signed his letter S. T. Mar [Sullivan T. Mar].  A handwritten note beside the newspaper clipping states,  “One S. J. Mar has an oriental shop in Shafer Building—across from F & N [Frederick & Nelson]. Also Telephone Book shows S. J. Mar 700 – 8th Ave.”

 

 

  1. “An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese, Sec. 13,” Immigration History, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/an-act-to-execute-certain-treaty-stipulations-relating-to-chinese-aka-the-chinese-exclusion-law/.

    ↩︎
  2. “Second Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Second-Sino-Japanese-War ↩︎

Ng Back Ging – Part 2 – Complications because of the Immigration Act of 1924

Chinese General Order No. 13, Immigration Act of 1924, photo, Precis of Investigation, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

See September 2024’s blog entry for the details of Ng Back Ging’s file up to his admittance to the U.S. in 1926.

In 1929 Ng Back Ging wanted to make a trip to China. The Immigration Act of 1924 made it more complicated to get approval for his trip. The 1924 Act prevented immigration from Asia except under certain circumstances. It capped total immigration to 165,000 and set the nationality quotas to 2% based on the 1890 census

The First Supplement to Chinese General Order No. 13 fixed this problem. It said that if the husband or father who was admitted before July 1, 1924, has maintained his status as a merchant, the wives and minor children admitted after June 30, 1924, would be lawfully admitted to the United States.

“H. E. Hull Correspondence #55476/519,” 20 November 1929, “The First Supplement to Chinese General Order No. 13,” Ng Back Ging, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Box 837, file 7031/120. 

The Immigration Act of 1924 as it relates to Ng Buck Look and his son Ng Back Ging:
1. Ng Buck Look, a merchant, was the father of Ng Back Ging. Ng Buck Look was lawfully admitted to the United States prior to 1 July 1924.
2. Ng Buck Look, the father, maintained his merchant status.
3. Ng Back Ging, his son, was lawfully admitted after 30 June 1924.

In late December 1929 Ng Back Ging applied for a Predetermination of Status Under General Order No. 13 to make a trip to China. He swore that his American name was Harold Ng and he was not married. He was born on 11 January 1913 in Mun Low village, Sun Woy District. He wanted to get treatment for his leg which was broken in August 1928 and was not healing. Since his arrival in 1926 he attended Pacific College in Seattle. He was asked some of the same questions he was asked during his 1926 interview. His answers were consistent with his earlier testimony. His father was interviewed again and testified that he had worked at Lin Shing Jewelry Store in Vancouver, B.C. for about two years before he came to Seattle. He showed the interviewer his papers from his admittance in 1926.

William Francis Roark and Ralph E. Olsen were interviewed and swore in an affidavit that they had been residents of Seattle for several years and were not Chinese. They knew Ng Buck Look for more than one year and believed that he was a member of the Quong Chong Company in Seattle, and he had not performed any manual labor during that time. Olsen was in the wholesale meat business and Roark was a passenger agent for the Milwaukee Railway. They both stated the Quong Chong Company was not associated with a restaurant, laundry, or gambling house.

Purely G. Hall, examining inspector, visited the company and reviewed three current years of the partnership books and noted that the gross sales for 1929 were over $40,000. He recommended that Ng Back Ging receive his certificate.

Ng Back Ging left for China after in December 1929 and returned to Seattle on 3 November 1930 and was admitted to the United States.

“Ng Back Ging, Precis,” 1930, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Bok Ging, Box 837, file 7031/120

For more information on the Immigration Act of 1924, see
Jay D. Green, “Passage of the 1924 Immigration Act,” 23 April 2024

Ng Back Ging – Son of Seattle Merchant

Affidavit, Canadiaan CI 4, Canadian CI 9, Canadian documents, Description of house, Description of village, head tax, merchant, minor son of merchant, photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ng Buck Look wanted to bring his son, Ng Back Ging, to the United States. Ng Buck Look (sometimes referred to as Ng Bok Look or Bok Look; marriage name: Yip Gee), was born in China and came to the United States in 1923. In August 1925 he swore in an affidavit that since his arrival, he had been a buyer and partner for the Quong Chong Company on King Street in Seattle, Washington. He and his wife, Wong Shee, had three sons, one of them passed away at the age of two years old. Ng Bok Look completed his affidavit and attached photos of himself and his son, Ng Back Ging, who was classified as the minor son of a merchant.

“Ng Buck Look [sic] Affidavit,” 1925, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Back Ging, Box 837, file 7031/120

In March 1926, Ng Back Ging, age fifteen, arrived in the Port of Seattle. He testified that he was born in Mun Low village, Sun Woy district, China. He had not seen his father in five or six years. His father had lived in China and Canada before coming to Seattle. His grandfather was a farmer in their village and his great grandfather was dead. The interrogator asked about his mother’s and father’s extended families. He described the village where he grew up, the houses, and the neighbors. His family had a red marriage paper with his great grandparents and grandparents’ names listed. He was asked about the tiles or stones in the house and the court, if they had a sewing machine or ancestral tablets, what the floors were made of, where the large and small doors, the windows, and the bedrooms were located, if they had a rice mill or pounder, and any pictures on the walls. Ng Back Ging was asked for details about his neighbors, their families, their houses, and the village. Where was the shrine? Was there a wall around the village, what was it made of? Is there a pond or stream near the village? Any land for growing rice or any stores? Is there a watch tower? Who are the watchmen? Who is the head of the village? He described his school experience. His testimony was over six pages long.

A. Brattstom, a white witness for Ng Buck Look, was interviewed. He was a salesman for the Mutual Paper Corporation and he sold paper, twine, bags and other paper goods to Buck Look at the Quong Chung Co. He knew Buck Look was a partner with Sam Choi. Brattstom was in the store at least once or twice a week.

Ng Dok Foon, the manager of Quong Chung Co. also testified. There were eleven partners in the firm, six of them were active. Their annual total sales were between $24,000 and $25,000. There was no gambling on the premises. The interpreter examined the company’s books and the figures agreed with the testimony. Ng Dok Foon lived in the same village as Buck Look and could verify all the information that had been given in the interviews.

There was a lengthy interview of Ng Buck Look. He described his father, Ng Dok Baw, who was about fifty-seven years old and worked in their home village in the rice fields. Buck Look’s mother had died, and his father remarried. He had five brothers and one sister. One of his brothers, Bok Fook, came to the U.S. and lived in somewhere in Oklahoma. He described his other siblings, their spouses and children, and the other details that his son described.

John A. Thompson, a meat cutter at Fair Market on King Street, was also a witness. He verified Ng Buck Look’s photo, and their testimony agreed. They were in each other’s stores frequently, sometimes once or twice a day. He considered Ng Buck Look “a pretty good merchant.”

Ng Buck Look was recalled, and five more pages of testimony were taken. He was asked about his father, the neighbors and their houses and families, slave families, ancestral halls, fishponds, walls around the city, watch towers, bridges and streams, markets, his son’s school experience, details about Ng Dok Foon [to make sure their testimonies agreed]. Ng Bok Look originally entered North America through Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He paid a $500 head tax when he arrived. He took one trip back to China while he lived in Canada. He planned to stay in Vancouver but decided to make a short visit to the U.S. He found a business opportunity in Seattle, so he decided to stay. Ng Buck Look did not have his Canadian documents with him, but he was allowed to go retrieve them. He presented a receipt for $500 head tax he paid, and a card showing his admittance into Vancouver on 12 March 1923 under Certificate of Identity 9, No. 45482.

Ng Back Ging, CEA , Canadian CI 5, 1914 & CI 9, 1923, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, file 7031/120.

9 March 1926, the Department of Immigration and Colonization in Canada sent the Seattle Immigration office certified documents showing Ng Buck Look’s original entry to Canada. They added a reminder that Ng Buck Look had forfeited his right to be readmitted to Canada by remaining away longer than the statutory period of two years.

Finally, the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) agreed that Ng Back Ging should be admitted. His father’s merchant status was confirmed, the books of his company were examined and cleared, and two statutory witnesses other than Chinese had been examined. His father was a member of one of the oldest Chinese stores in Seattle. There were no discrepancies in all the testimony. The father and son resembled each other and had similar mannerisms. The father was in China at the right time to conceive a son with Ng Back Ging’s date of birth. The decision to admit Ng Back Ging was unanimous. He was admitted on 13 March 1926.

[To be continued next blog entry]

Lock Yet – Laborer to Merchant – Olympia to Holquim

Affidavit, Certificate of Residence, laborer's return certificate, Lost Certificate, merchant, Status Change, White witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 1901 Lock Yet, a Chinese laborer from Olympia, Washington, wanted to visit his family in China, stay for one year, and bring his son back to the U.S. He filled out all the necessary paperwork according to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. He wanted to assure that he would be able return to the U.S. with his son. In an affidavit, Lock Yet stated that he had been a resident of Olympia since 1894. He had applied for and received a Certificate of Residence #43944. He described himself as thirty-eight years old, shallow complexion, brown eyes, and very large thick lips. The Act required that a laborer wanting to leave be owed more than $1,000 that could only be collected when he return. Lock How, Lock Wing, and Lock Sing, all from Olympia, each owed him more than $400, fulfilling the requirement. Lock Yet completed his affidavit by attaching a photo of himself.

“Lock Yet, Affidavit, page 1” 1901, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, Box RS256, file RS32260.
“Lock Yet, Affidavit, page 1” 1901, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, Box RS256, file RS32260.

P. J. O’Brien and W. W. Bellman were Lock Yet’s witnesses. Their testimony agreed with Lock Yet’s. G. C. Israel, a Notary Public, also swore in an affidavit that he had personal known the witnesses for the past five years, they were reputable businessmen living in Olympia, and their statement were trueful.

Lock Yet hoped to leave from Port Townsend. There are no documents in his file showing his paperwork was approved, or that he left for China and returned with his son.

The next documents in the file are from August 1913. Lock Yet left Olympia by train to Hoquiam, Grays Harbor, Washington. He lost his Certificate of Residence somewhere on the tripso he applied for a new one and attached a current photo of himself in American clothes. His attorney, Sidney Moor Heath, sent a letter to the Immigration Office in Seattle explaining the situation. Lock Lad, owner of the Foo Lee Laundry, in Hoquiam, testified that he had known Lock Yet for twenty-five years and had seen his original certificate in the past but neither of them could find it. Parker Ellis, Immigrant Inspector, wrote a letter In October 1913 regarding the lost certificate. Ellis mentioned Lock Yet’s 1901 visit to China.  Ellis DeBruler, Immigration Commissioner at Aberdeen, wrote back saying that Lock Yet was admitted through the Aberteen port in late 1902 and had his certificate with him at the time. Lock Yet’s Certificate of Residence was officially declared lost and a duplicate #144502 was issued to him.

In October 1914, Lock Yet applied for a Return Certificate. He swore in an affidavit that he was fifty years old, a resident of Hoquiam, Washington for the last year, after living in Olympia for twenty years and had no relatives in the United States. His marriage name was Jung Lun. His wife and son, Lock Sang, age 13, were living in his native village. He stated that he made a trip to  China in 1901 and return in 1902. [This trip  is not recorded in his file.] Liw Ting swore in an affidavit that he owed Lock Yet $1,000. Liw Ting was fifty-three years old, the owner of Nanking Noodle House in Hoquiam and knew Lock Yet for fifteen years. Lock Yet’s application was approved and he left for Git Lung, Sunning district, China. When he returned in November 1915, he told Immigration that another son, Lock Ying, was born shortly before he left China to return to the United States.         

Lock Yet, 1914, Application of Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborer Return Certificate, Form 432,
“Application of Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborer Return Certificate, Form 432,” 1914, CEA,
RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, File RS32260.

   In 1918, Lock Yet wanted to change his status from laborer to merchant so he could bring his older son over from China to live with him. He now had a $300 interest in the Kung Yick Company and was working as a salesman. His salary was $25 a month. In October, Lock Yet applied for a Preinvestigation of Status as a Merchant. Immigration Inspector G. H. Mangels interviewed Lock Yet at the store, in his sickbed. He was very ill with influenza. He denied working as a laundryman, oyster fisherman, cannery man, or other manual labor during the last twelve months. He stated that he had been to China twice. In 1901 he left from Seattle and returned in 1902 through Port Townsend. [This 1901-1902 trip information is not documented in the file.] His second trip was in 1913 when he went through Seattle and returned in 1914. His status was a laborer both times.

[According to the Exclusion Act, it was necessary to have two white witnesses who were U.S. citizens, swear in an affidavit that the Chinese person wishing to be classified as a merchant had been a merchant during the last full year and had done no manual labor. The white witnesses were considered more credible than Chinese witnesses.]

Grant Talcott, a fifty-four-year-old jeweler who had lived in Olympia since 1873 was interviewed by Immigration Inspector G. H. Mangels. Talcott said he was acquainted with most of the Chinese in Olympia, and he recognized a photo of Lock Yet. Even though he had known Lock Yet for twenty-five to thirty years, he didn’t know his name. He called him “boy.” Talcott saw Lock Yet in the vicinity of the Kung Yick Company so he assumed he had some business there. The Inspector questioned if Talcott knew much about Lock Yet. Talcott admitted that he signed the affidavit that Tom O’Leary prepared without inspecting it closely.

Joseph Zemberlin was also a witness for Lock Yet. He swore that he was fifty years old, a fish dealer who lived in Olympia for over thirty years. He had known Lock Yet for about one and a half years. He saw him working in the store many times.

George G. Mills, testified that he had lived in Olympia for fifty-two years, since he was an infant. He was a hardware merchant. He was acquainted with all the Chinese in Olympia. He rambled on about how he probably saw Lock Yet in town or at the store.

Inspector Mangels interviewed Lock You, the manager of Kung Yick Company. The Inspector noted that they had Lock You’s family history from when they interviewed him when his son was admitted. There were ten members of his firm; four were active. They sold Chinese general merchandise and had about $1,400 in inventory. Lock You also ran the Lew Café where he employed six people, including two white women. Mangels reviewed the partnership and salary books

Inspector Mangels wrote up a summary of the interviews for the Seattle Immigration Office. He said Mills and Talcott were both men of high standing and that they positively identified Lock Yet’s photo. He did not place as much confidence in Zamberlin’s testimony.

[After reading Mangles reaction to Talcott’s testimony, it was surprising that he had more confidence in Talcott’s testimony than in Zamberlin’s.]

Mangels was impressed with Lock Yet’s knowledge of the store’s goods and prices and that despite Lock Yet being very ill, he testified to obtain his certificate. He thought Lock Yet had become a merchant just so his son could enter the country and then would probably go back to being a laborer.

Lock Yet’s status as a merchant was approved.

There is no information in the file to show when or if Lock Yet left for China and returned to the U.S.

Lee Wing Hing – Wife of Mar Hing, Seattle Merchant

Affidavit, Alien Registration Act of 1940, Chinese interpreter, Group Photo, Photographs, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In March 1908, Mar Hing was about to go to Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, to get married. James Shea and Frank Jobson, both residents of Seattle for more than five years, swore in an affidavit that they knew Mar Hing more than two years. He was a merchant, partner, and cashier for the Ah King Company who performed no manual labor. A photo of Mar Hing was attached to the affidavit and signed by affiants.

"Mar Hing Affidavit," 1908,
“Mar Hing Affidavit,” 1908, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Wing Hing, Box 1007, file 7032/3680.

According to Mar Hing’s 1908 affidavit he had been a resident of the State of Washington for more than twenty years and was currently living in Seattle. He had a $500 interest in the Ah King Company where he bought and sold general merchandise and was a cashier. He was visiting Victoria to marry Lee Wong Hing. They would be returning to Seattle in a few days. He attached a current photo of Lee Wong Hing.

"Lee Wing Hing Affidavit," 1908,
“Lee Wing Hing Affidavit,” 1908, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Wing Hing (Mrs. Mar Hing) file 7032/3680.

Lee Wong Hing was interviewed when the couple arrived in Seattle. She had been living in Victoria for nine years with her parents. Her father, Lee Hong Gue, was a Chinese interpreter and merchant. Lee Wong Hing and Mar Hing were married according to Chinse custom and English law. The certificate was inspected by the inspector and approved but not included in the file. Lee Wong Hing was admitted to the United States as a member of the exempt class, the wife of a domiciled Chinese merchant.

The following year, Lee Wong Hing and her infant son, Gim Wing visited Victoria in July for a few weeks, returned, and were admitted on 21 August 1909.  Daniel Landon, Frank L. Mitten, and her husband, were witnesses for her

"Lee Wing Hing Application," 1909,
“Lee Wing Hing Application,” 1909, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Wing Hing (Mrs. Mar Hing) file 7032/3680.

[About this time Lee Wong Hing’s started appearing on documents as Lee Wing Hing.} In the summer of 1917, Lee Wing Hing, now twenty-nine years old, and the mother of five children, ages one to nine, applied to visit her family in Victoria. The children Harry (Mar Wing), Clarence (Mar Lun), Howard (Mar Shew), James (Mar Gum Shu), and Myra (Mar Saung Gew) were all born in Seattle. Their family physician, Dr. U. C. Bates, identified the family from their photo. Miss Won Mee Menie, age eleven, accompanied them on the trip.

"Lee Wong Hing Family photo,” 1917,
“Lee Wong Hing Family photo,” 1917, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Wing Hing (Mrs. Mar Hing) file 7032/3680.

Lee Wing Hing made a few brief trips to Victoria and Vancouver from 1943 to 1944. By then she had eight children, five were living in Seattle and three were in the U.S. Army. Harry was working in a mine in Oregon, Clarence was working in a shipyard in Seattle, James and Howard were both in the Army, and Howard was stationed in Alaska.  In February 1944 Lee Wong Hing and three friends applied to go to Victoria for a weekend to attend a wedding. She registered under the Alien Registration Act of 1940 and renewed it when it was about to expire. When asked why she was getting her card revalidated, she said she “may want to visit Canada again.” Her file lists another trip to Canada in May 1944.          

Lee Wing Hing’s Reference Sheet lists the file numbers for four sons, one daughter, and her children’s helper in 1917, Won Mee Menie. One son and one daughter were born after the 1917 trip are not included on the list.  [These file numbers would be helpful for anyone researching the family.]

[Additional information not included in the file:
Lee Shee Mar Hing died 18 January 1946, age 56, Seattle, Washington.1
Mar Hing died 10 October 1939 in Seattle, Washington.2

  1. “Washington Deaths and Burials, 1810-1960,” FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/Entry for Lee Shee Mar Hing and Lee Mar Hing, 26 Jan 1946. ↩︎
  2. “Washington Death Certficates, 1907-1960,” FamilySearch, Https://familysearch.org/,Henry Maary Hing, 10 Oct 1939. ↩︎

[Thank you, Hao-Jan Chang telling me about this file. thn]

Low Yow Edwin – born in Alaska

application for citizen's return certificate, Birth Certificate, Form 430, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In March 1939 Edwin Low Yow started the process of obtaining a Citizen’s Return Certificate at Immigration and Naturalization Service in Seattle. He testified that his full name was Edwin Low Yow and the American version was Edwin Low. He was twenty-three years old, a cab driver, and was born on 25 September 1915 at Killisnoo, Alaska. He presented a certified copy of this birth certificate to the Immigration Inspector. His father, Low Yow, was born in China, and his mother, Martha James, was an Alaska (full blood) Eskimo native. Low Yow was a cannery contractor in Alaska and spent most of the summer months there for several years.

Low Yow Edwin Photo
“Low Yow Edwin, Form 430 photo,” 1939, Chinese Exclusion Act Case Files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Low Yow Edwin, Seattle file Box 783, #7030/11920.

Edwin’s mother, Martha James, died about 1916 when Edwin was about one-year old and his sister, Amy Low Yow, was about two years old. Their father, Low Yow, lived in Seattle when he was not working in Alaska. He also had a second wife, Chin Suie Heung  (American name Helen), in Seattle.

Helen did not know that her husband had another wife in Alaska until after Martha James (his other wife) died. Low Yow brought the children to his home in Seattle when they were small and asked his second wife to take care of them. He did not admit that he was the children’s father until he was on his death bed. He died at age sixty-three at Seattle in March 1927.

Low Yow and Helen had four children; two died in infancy. Their surviving daughters were Daisy and Rose. Daisy married G. D. Graves and they lived in Seattle. Rose married Harley Tong. She spent five years in China with Harley then returned to Seattle and he remained there.

“Mrs. Law Yow, Interview” 1939, CEA Case Files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Low Yow Edwin, #7030/11920.

[Notice the inconsistent spelling of Low and Law throughout the document.]

Edwin’s sister, Amy Low Yow, was a witness for her brother. She was married to Willard Jew and they lived in Seattle. Edwin planned to leave for China through San Francisco so he applied for a Return Certificate through the office there and his paperwork was transfer to a San Francisco file. Immigration requested his parents’ death certificates. Amy obtained a certified copy of her father’s Seattle, King County, Washington, death certificate. She did not have enough information to get a copy of the certificate for her mother who died in Alaska. 

Edwin and Amy’s stepmother, Helen, testified that she was born in San Francisco about 1881 and her childhood name Chin Suie Heung before she married and became Mrs. Law Yow.  [She doesn’t mention that Helen was part of her name.] Her testimony about her daughters Daisy and Rose agreed with Edwin and Amy’s.

Edwin presented a copy of his birth certificate as proof of his citizenship. His application was approved.

The Reference Sheet in Edwin’s file contains the file numbers for his stepsister, Rose, and her husband, Harley.

[Low Yow Edwin was the father of CEA volunteer, Rhonda Farrar. Read about how Rhonda found her father’s file when she was indexing the Chinese Exclusion Act files.