Chinese Research Resources – Update
Chinese North American History Network – a directory of Chinese History Museums and Historical Societies across North America
Chinese North American History Network Facebook Page – a site to promote the content of the Chinese museums in North America
On 18 August 1891, Rossell G. O’Brien, Brigardier General of the Washington National Guard, signed an affidavit stating that Lock Loon (Lock Ling) of the Chung-Lee Co., Olympia, Washington, wished to visit Victoria, B.C. before making a trip to China. The document certified that Lock Ling was entitled to return to Olympia, Washington. James C. Horr, Mayor of Olympia, added a note saying that he knew Lock Loon personally. Lock Loon signed his affidavit in Chinese characters. An undated form from the Treasury Department said Lock Ling was admitted.
[Lock Ling’s file contains many pages and forms and covers the years 1891 to 1944. Sometimes the information is repetitive; frequently it is confusing and raises other questions. The file and therefore this summary is not meant to be a biography. Immigration officials used a series of interviews, affidavits, witnesses, and other documents to evaluate if they should admit someone to the United States. There were numerous restrictions and they wanted to make sure they were not admitting laborers, or anyone deemed unacceptable under the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was a complicated system.]
[The names Lock Ling and Lock Loon are interchangeable in these documents. This summary of the files will use the name the way it was spelled in the actual document.]
Rev. Clark Davis and C. P. Stone of Seattle were witnesses for Lock Ling’s trip to China in July 1897 and when he returned in September 1898. Lock Ling moved from Olympia and was then working at Mark Ten Suie Company in Seattle.
In October 1902 Lock Ling wished to make another trip to China. He swore in an affidavit that he was thirty-six years old and had lived in the United States for twenty-one years. He was currently a merchant for Coaster Tea Company. They sold teas, coffees, and spices in Seattle. He wanted to visit his family in China and bring back is son, Locke Loui, who was fifteen and a student. He attached his photo and a photo of his son to his affidavit. Harold N. Smith and Clark Davis were his witnesses. His application was approved.
Section 2, S.21039 of the Chinese Exclusion Act was updated and made stricter in 1893. It was no longer enough for a witness to testify that an applicant had not engaged in manual labor for at least one year before his departure from the United States, the testimony had to show specifically the kind of work the applicant did during the entire year. This did not present a problem for Lock Ling.
On his return trip in July 1904, he was admitted at Port Townsend, Washington. The record does not show if his son, Locke Loui, was with him.
In March 1910 Lock Ling (Lock Loon) declared in an affidavit that he was forty-four years old; that he had been in the United States for twenty-eight years; had been a resident of Seattle for sixteen years; that he was a merchant for the last three years with Wing Long & Company; had recently sold his interest in the business; and became of member of Hong Chong Company. He wanted to visit his second wife, Lee See at Sing Ning City, Canton. His first wife had died, and he wanted to bring his son, Lock Kim, age thirteen and a student at Canton University, back to Seattle with him. He attached photos of himself and his son to his affidavit.
P. K. Smith and George O. Sanborn, both citizens of Seattle, swore in affidavits that they knew Lock Ling more than three years. They swore he was a merchant and performed no manual labor except what was necessary to conduct business as a merchant.
When Lock Ling was interviewed, he testified he was married and had three sons, Lock Loy, Lock Yen/Ying, and Lock Kim, and a daughter. His son Lock Ying was admitted in 1908 and living in Seattle; and Lock Loy was declared insane in a hospital in Steilacoom and went back to China. Lock Ling had been back to China four times, once before the Exclusion Act was passed.
The Immigration Inspector made a note on Lock Ling’s interview saying Lock Ling was well known as a salesman for Wing Long Company. His new firm, Hong Chong Company, had forty partners. He would be their treasurer; they sold drugs and general merchandise. The company was not incorporated under Washington State law but according to Chinese custom. They had a four-year lease from Mrs. W. D. Hofius for the four-story brick building, still being built for $950 per month.
Lock Ling’s application was approved, and he left for China in March 1910. He returned in October 1912 and was interrogated when he arrived. He gave his marriage name as Yin Ling and his childhood name as Lock Lung. He was returning from his fifth trip to China with his third wife, Wong Shee, his son Lock Kim and his daughter, Lock Mee. He had three sons and a daughter with his first wife who died about 1902. His sons Lock Loy, age 24, had been in the U.S. but went back to China about 1909 and Lock Yen, age 19, was in Seattle. His son and daughter, Lock Gim and Lock Mee, were in the detention house waiting for approval to enter the U.S. Lock Ling’s second wife, Lee Shee had a son, Lock Goey, who was still living in China. When Lee Shee died, her son Lock Loy carried the incense jar to the cemetery. Lock Ling then married Wong Shee according to the Chinese custom. For the ceremony, she did not wear a veil but the tassels from her coronet hung down over her face. She was brought to his house in a regular red, blue, and green sedan chair.
When asked, Lock Ling described his property in China: a house and rice land worth $3,000 Chinese money, and a building in Hongkong worth about $15,000 Hongkong money. He boasted that he went to China five times and a child was born as a result of each trip. In January 1943, Lock Ling (Lock Loon), age seventy-five, applied for a Laborer’s Return Certificate to visit Vancouver, B.C. He qualified because he owed his daughter, Lock Mee Oye, born and residing in Seattle, Washington, more than $1,000. He presented Immigration authorities his Certificate of Residence #55720 which was issued in Portland, Oregon in 1894. It showed that he was born 11 May 1868 in China and entered the United States with his father about 1882 at San Francisco at the age of fifteen. He lost his original Certificate of Residence #44577 so he presented his replacement certificate. His application was approved, and his current photo was attached to the document. Lock Ling and his wife went to Vancouver and returned to Seattle four days later.
Lock’s Reference Sheet shows three files were brought forward and gives file numbers for his wife, four daughters, and two sons.
[According to Hao-Jan Chang, CEA NARA volunteer and Locke family expert, Yen Ling Lock and former Governor Gary Locke are distantly related. They have common ancestors, starting from the first generation to the third generation. Yen Ling Lock is of the19th generation. Gary Locke is of the 25th generation.]
“Affidavit for Yee Quin Wah,” 1908, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Yee Quin Wah, Seattle Box 870, file 7030/48.
A note in Yee Quin Wah’s file says, “29 Chinese date Steamer Silvia April 1904 left for China came back to San Franciso Oct 1905.” It is attached to a M194 form, an Application for Return Certificate form, dated 3 July 1930. He was applying for a certificate to return to the U.S. and was using an affidavit from 1908 for proof of his eligibility.
His 1908 affidavit stated that Yee Quin Wah had lived in San Francisco for twenty-seven years. He was a merchant with Quong Yee Chong Company in business at 735 Jackson Street. It states that he was a “genial and jolly good fellow” and an honest, fair-minded man who could be relied upon to keep his word. His affidavit is signed by thirty-two attestors:
H. A. Estabrook, American National Bank;
A. S. Ivanhol [??], Russo-Chinese Bank;
E. J. Forester, Zellerbach Paper Co.;
C. U. Barlow, Real Estate, 628 Montgomery, SF;
Newton G. Cohn, Real Estate, 147 Sutter St;
C. G. Taylor, Dentist, 973 Market St.,
F. J. Dowd, Clerk, 2713 Howard St.;
A. E. Flagg, Clerk, S.F. Gas & Electric, 2691 Bush St.;
Clarkson Dye, Insurance Broker, 444 California St.;
Paul Lus, Cal. Spring Valley Water Co., 375 Sutter;
M. Swanut [??], 2049 Polk St;
D. A. Cauiblum [??], 577 Market St.;
Geo. W. Duffield, 1931 Larkin St.;
Wm. J. Gardner, 2209 Devisadero St.;
John Wilson, room 623 Merchant Exchange Bldg.;
A. M. Bryan, 348 Clay St;
Jean T. Hondel,[??] 775 Jackson St.;
Octavius Pistolesi, 914 Dupont St.;
Harvey H. Duffield, 1919 Larkin St.;
W. Zeiph [??], 7 Montgomery Ave.;
A. C. Karshi, 111 Montgomery St.;
W. A. Murphy, Swift & Co.;
C. Rickards, 514 California St.;
E. S. T. Messe [??], 602 Mission St.;
Clayland Miller Telephone Co. 192 ½ Valley St.;
Benjamin F. Andes, 602 Missouri St.;
F. H. Grisse [??], 602 Missouri St.;
Elmer R. Jones, 939 Grant Ave. S. F.;
O. A. Cogan, 577 Market St.;
Walter J. MacGrath or MacNutter [??], Wells Fargo & Co. Second & Mission;
Daniel A. McNulty, Post Office, Sta. B;
Yee Quin Wah was interviewed in Seattle in 1930. He testified that his marriage name was Yee Gee, he was 62 years old and a salesman for the Hop Hing Lung Company in Youngstown, Ohio. The only proof he had that he was legally in the U.S. was the 1908 affidavit. Yee Quin Wah had the necessary $1,000 deposited in a local bank, as required, to be eligible for a laborer’s return certificate. He was reminded that the full amount must still be deposited in the bank when he returned and he must return within one year through the Port of Seattle, the same port he departed. If he needed to extend his stay in China, it could not exceed one year, or he would be barred from readmission.
Yee’s San Francisco file #10082/53 was forwarded to the Seattle office. The information agreed with Yee’s current testimony; he was lawfully in the United States. He was issued his return certificate.
Although Yee Quin Wah qualified for merchant status, he decided to apply for a laborer’s return certificate. He thought it would take longer to get a merchant’s return permit than one for a laborer. His wife in China was sick and he wanted to get back to China as quickly as possible.
Yee Quin Wah left the Port of Seattle on 12 July 1930, returned in May 1931 and was admitted.
Benny Yi-Bing Chu found information on his grandparents on the blog. He is the grandson of Kenneth S. Wang and Dora Brandenberger. Benny is a former professor at the Beijing Conservatory and founded the China Philharmonic Cellists and the SuperCello festival.
Huie Taong arrived in the U.S. at the Port of San Francisco in 1872. From there he went to Ellensburg, Washington, and worked as a cook and ran a laundry. As a laborer, according the 1892 Geary Act which renewed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, he was required to obtain a Certificate of Residence. His certificate described him as a laundryman, thirty-seven years old, five feet three and three-fourth inches, with a scar in the center of his forehead. It was signed and dated May 3, 1894 by Henry Blackman, the Collector of Internal Revenue in Portland, Oregon. Huie Taong’s photograph was attached to the document.
In 1905 Huie Taong applied for a Return Certificate so he could go to China and legally return to the U.S. He swore in an affidavit that he had property worth more the $1,000. It consisted of a one-fourth interest in the California Restaurant in Ellensburg, Kittitas County, Washington, valued at about $2,000. His interest was $500. Suey Gin owed him about $700 and Lew Fong owed him $500.
The information in affidavits by Suey Gin and Lew Fong agreed with Huie Taong.
Eight Ellensburg residents signed a statement certifying that the knew Huie Taong and believed his statement was true. They were: O. Henman, Post Office; L. R. Thomas, Sheriff; M E. Flynn, Mayor; J. C. Hubbell, Mgr. Water Co; P. H. W Ross, banker; E. H. Snowden, banker; B. F. Reed, Creamery Proprietor; Austin Mires, City Attorney.
The Chinese Inspector, Mr. A. F. Richardson, visited the California Restaurant several times and was impressed with the people and the place. The restaurant was leased to Wing Yick Tong Company from J. E. Farrell for $50 a month. Because it was doing such a good business, Richardson recommended that Huie Taong’s Return Certificate be approved.
Huie Taong returned from his trip to China to Port Townsend, Washington, and was admitted as a laborer on 31 March 1906. He was forty-six years old, weighed 154 pounds, stout with a large brown mark inside his left forearm, a large scar about two inches long in the center of his forehead, and moles on his jaws and temple. Lew Fong and Suey Gin still owed him over $1,000. He did not have an official note but he kept a small book where he recorded the amounts owed him.
On 24 October 1908, Huie Taong applied to go to China again as a laborer. His “baby name” was Huie Doo Taong and his “marriage name” was Huie Tai Ball. He still had a $500 interest in the California Restaurant and debts due from Suey Gim and Lew Fong. He attached a current photo of himself to the application. The interrogator warned Huie Taong that he must return to the United States with one year and that during his absence his property must not be disposed of, or his debts collected.
Huie Foy was a witness for this trip. He was forty-five years old, born in China, had a Certificate of Registration, and owned the Loy Lee Laundry in Ellensburg. He came to the U.S. in 1882 and bought his laundry from Hop Lee in 1907. He had been back to China twice. He had known Huie Taong for about twenty years and owed him $500.
Sam Wah was also a witness for Huie Taong. He was in the hop business and a partner in the California Restaurant which he described as the best business in town. The prices were so low for hops the last two years that he borrowed $700 from Huie Taong.
Huie Taong’s application was approved on in late November 1908 and a few weeks late he left for China.
Huie Taong returned to Ellensburg in November 1909. In his interview for admission, he said that while he was in China he and his wife had adopted a seven-year-old boy named Huie Hong Jack whose birthplace in China was not known.
Huie Taong applied for another trip to China in November 1912. He based his application on having a $1,000 deposit at the Washington National Bank of Ellensburg. His Return Certificate was approved.
Huie Taong returned to China in October 1913. His wife had died and he remarried. His current wife and adopted son were in China.
In July 1920 Hui Taong, now using his complete name, Huie Doo Taong, was the chief owner and manager of a large restaurant wanted to change his status from laborer to merchant so he could bring his family to the U.S. He asked his lawyer, Mr. E. E. Wagen, to help him. Wagen told him that since he managed a large restaurant and did no manual labor, he should be considered a merchant under the Chinese Exclusion Law. The New York Café, did between $40,000 and $50,000 in business per year. “The practice is for the father to have drawn up an affidavit by himself in which his present status is described and information given as to his right of domicile in the country. In this affidavit he should mention something about his family in China, especially the son he purposes having join him in this country. To this affidavit there should be attached a photograph of both the father and the son. The foregoing paper should be supplemented by the joint affidavit of two white persons who the status of the father during the last past year. These men should be prepared to state definitely what the particular daily work of the applicant has been during the year. The practice is to prepare the affidavit in duplicate, to send the duplicate to this office for filing and future use, and the original to the boy in China to be used by him in obtaining transportation to the country.”
Wagen checked with Hon. Henry M. White, Commissioner of Immigration who told the attorney the rules and documents needed:
“Under the supreme court decision which permits the minor sons of exempts to come to this country, it is particularly stated that they are admitted to assume the exempt status of their resident parent. Under the law, therefore, such persons cannot become laborers while in the United States. It would be contrary to the law for Huie Doo Taong to bring his son to this country to place him in school for a short time, and then to have him work as a laborer, no matter if working for him in his own restaurant.”
After hearing that he qualified as a merchant, Huie Doo Taong started the process to bring his son, Huie Hong Jack, to the U.S. to continue his education. Attorney Wagen swore in an affidavit that he knew Huie personally, that Huie had done no manual labor in the last year, and he had filed Huie’s income tax return with an income of more than $90,000 for the café for the year 1919. Huie filed an affidavit with all the pertinent information and included photos of himself and his son. The paperwork was approved and Huie sent it to the Consulate in Hongkong.
Huie Hong Jack arrived at the Port of Seattle on 6 January 1921. He completed the interrogation process but was found to have hookworm. He received hospital treatment and when he was certified disease free, he was admitted to the U.S. as the minor son of a domiciled Chinese merchant on 28 January 1921.
Huie Taong made is final trip to China in December 1923 and there is no indication from his file that he returned to the United States.
Thank you, National Archives CEA volunteer, Lily Eng, for alerting me to this file and making copies for me. Lily’s grandfather worked at the New York Café as a waiter and became a partner in the early 1930s. Her father worked there when he first immigrated to the U.S. until he started his own restaurant in Yakima in 1951.
The 2016 blog entry for Gim Bing has been updated to include more information from his file.
1903 Sept 28 – Lee Poo started the process of obtaining a return certificate which would allow him to reenter the U.S. within a year of his department date. He swore in an affidavit that he was laborer, age 37 years, had been in the United States 23 years and was living in Walla Walla, Washington, and working as a gardener nearby. He was owed more than $1,000 by Jim Lee and Hoy Yam, both of Walla Walla. He handed over his Certificate of Residence which would be returned to him when he reentered the U.S. His photo was attached to the affidavit.
1903 Sept 28 – Jim Lee and Hoy Yam, both from Walla Walla, swore that they owed Lee Poo, a total of $1,100. The Chinese Inspector verified the loans with them.
1903 October 8 – the Commissioner-General at the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, D.C. wrote to the Inspector in Charge in Port Townsend, Washington saying they compared Lee Poo’s duplicate Certificate of Residence that they had in their file and it completely agreed with Lee’s copy. Hoy Yam testified that he still owed Lee Poo money. Jim Lee who worked as a gardener in Walla Walla, also testified that he still owed Lee Poo money.
1904 June 28 – R. B. Scott, the Chinese Inspector at Port Townsend report that Jim Lee and Hoy Yan both said that neither of the debts were in the form of promissory notes.
1904 Aug 24 – When Lee Poo returned to Port Townsend on 25 August 1904, he testified that he was 38 years old and lived in Walla Walla. He had worked in a laundry for three years, then as a cook for fifteen or so years, and as a gardener for the last two years. He saved his earnings and accumulated about $3,500. He took half of it to China and left the remainder with his cousin, Jim Lee who owned a garden in Walla Walla near the O.R. & N (Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company) depot. Lee Poo worked every day of the week for one dollar a day. Jim Lee had only paid him about $40 so he still owed him $500.
Lee Poo loaned $600 in gold coins to Hoy Yan so he could buy an interest in a garden. He kept his money at Quong Chung Seng’s place in Walla Walla. Bow Loy, a member of the firm, was a witness to the transaction and held the notes. He signed an IOU for the money.
Lee Poo also leased a garden with his cousin Lee Hing in Dayton, Washington. They owned a horse and wagon.
Lee Poo’s trip to China involved taking a steamer from Port Townsend to Victoria, another steamer to Vancouver, then the Empress Line to China. After Lee Poo’s return, Jim Lee and Hoy Yan both testified they still owed Lee Poo money.
1904 Aug 27 – Lee Poo was denied admittance and given two days to file an appeal. He filed an appeal.
1904 Sept 6 – Lee Poo told his lawyer that he thought his application for a certificate of departure and return was proof of note for his loans. He gave Bow Loy a slip of Chinese writing paper listing how much money he was owed by Jim Lee and Hoy Yun. It seems that Lee Poo did not understand he was being asked about a legal “promissory note” not just a note reminding him that he was owed money.
He was rejected “on the ground that the debts on which he sought to re-enter the United States were evidenced by promissory notes.”
1904 Sept 14 – The report of R. B. Scott, Chinese Inspector at Port Townsend, to the Inspector in Charge clarified that the monies due Lee Poo were for money borrowed and labor performed; they were not promissory notes. His Book of Debts Owed was offered as evidence of the debts owed by Hoy Yun and Jim Lee.
“Book of Debts Due to Lee Poo,” CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Poo, Box RS 019, file RS 664.
Kwong Si 29 August 10,
Jim Lee, total balance due $500
Lee Poo Count.
Kwong Si 29 August, form other book –
Total –
28 year April 10
Borrowed U.S. gold coin $600
Both agree until next year when I come back.
Huey Yan see Lee Poo count.
(Translated by Chin Kee, Chinese Interpreter)
This case file pertains to the Bayard-Zhang Treaty of 1888 and the 1888 Scott Act. To find out more about them, go to https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Scott_Act_(1888)#Scott_Act
Connecting Families to the Files:
10 July 2023, Debbie Jiang:
Debbie Jiang was so excited to see a summary of her ancestor, Ng Sen Wing, Chinese Exclusion Act case file. She wrote:
“I know these people! Ng Sen Wing and family are related to some of my grandmother’s cousins’ descendants whom I will be seeing in two weeks at our triannual family reunion. They will love knowing all of this! I am busy finding new material on the Canadian side of Chinese exclusion archives and our newly released 1931 census records!”
“Note: Ng Sen Wing’s son, Ng Jung Fie was twice a widower, poor man, but he was instrumental in sponsoring his second wife’s extended family to the U.S. in 1962. Ng Jung Go’s son, Wah Poy, lived to age 85. He married my grandma’s first cousin, Alice, whom he met in Shanghai during the Second World War, introduced by my grandma’s brother (who worked as an immigration officer at Ellis Island, his name is C. H. Yung). What a small world!”
“Wah Poy’s grandson, Gabe Eng-Goetz is an artist in Durham, NC, and in this video he talks about his roots along with showing his box mural painting, a tribute to his Chinese roots!
(Some of the family spelled Ng, “Eng”) Enjoy!
Wong Tew Quay was admitted at the Port of Seattle, Washington, on 1 March 1938, as the wife of a merchant. She was issued Certificate of Identity 76724. She was accompanied by her ten-year-old son, Mah Kang.
Wong Tew Quay and her son Mah Kang also had San Pedro, California files, 14036/82-B and 83-B. A Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) consisting of the chairman, two inspectors, an official government typist and an interpreter interviewed the family. There were fourteen pages of testimony. Most of the interview was with her husband, but her file contained more than five pages of interrogation with her, the subject of the file.
Wong Tew Quay’s husband’s interrogation included this information: Gee Chow Wai (marriage name Seung Din) also had an American name, Harry Wah. His Seattle file listed him as Mah Wai. Because he used several names, he will be referred to as Mah Wai in this summary. He testified that he was born in Hong Soon village, Jee Hung section, Hoy San District, China about 1898. He left China when he was 14 and was admitted to Canada under the name Mah Wai as the son of a merchant, Mah Sang. After his arrival he did not live with Mah Sang but lived in Edmonton with the Gee family. He was asked if he freely admitted that he gained admission to Canada on a fraudulent claim. He answered that he did.
In 1924, Mah Wai’s Section 6 Certificate which allowed merchants to enter the country, was endorsed by the American vice-consul at Calgary, Aberta, Canada. Mah Wai was a partner of the Barrack Grocery store in Edmonton for two years before coming to the U.S. to become a partner of the Gim Ngoon Grocery and Restaurant in Needles, California. From there he made four trips out of the U.S., one to Canada, and three to China. On one of his trips, he married Wong Tew Quay. During his interview, he gave details of his village, wedding, their children, and his extended family. The interviewer asked if he had claimed two false sons in a previous interview and if he intended to bring them into the country for compensation. Mah Wai admitted that he had thought about bringing them in but did not do it, and if he had, he would not have taken money to bring them in.
[The interviews continued in spite of this alarming admission. It is surprising that he wasn’t immediately rejected or deported.]
Wong Tew Quay’s testimony agreed with her husband’s. She testified that her mother arranged their wedding. It was half old custom and half new. She first met Mah Wai on their wedding day. He gave her two gold rings and a pair of gold bracelets. Their wedding feast was held at a small pavilion in the village with music provided by two flutists. Her contributions to her new household were a large square table, several wooden stools and chairs, two ratan chairs, a wardrobe, dressing table and a washstand. Her testimony agreed with her husband’s including knowing about her husband’s claim of two false sons (paper sons).
Their son, Jee Doo Keung (Mah Kang) was also interrogated. His testimony agreed with his parents. He attended school in Hong Soon village. On one of his father’s visits to China, his father gave him a fountain pen and took him to a moving picture show at the Hai Ping theatre in Hoy San city. Jee Doo Keung correctly identified all the family members he was shown in various photographs.
Wong Tew Quay and Mah Wai re-examined and asked to identify the six people in the photo they had given to the American Consul in Canton during their precis interview. Their testimony agreed. Years earlier in a previous testimony Mah Wei told Immigration Service that he lived in Nam Long village but in this current interview he said he was from Hong Soon village. He confessed that as the paper son of Mah Sang, he had to say he was from Nam Long. He admitted that he made up the identifying information about the two paper sons.
The Chairman of Board of Special Inquiry noted that Gee Chow Wai (Mah Wai) was originally admitted to the U.S. from Canada in 1924. Mah Wai showed proof of being a merchant in his four previous trips out of the U.S. The rest of his testimony seemed to be honest and correct; he identified everyone in the photographs correctly; and his son resembled him. A few days earlier Mah Wai told the commissioner that he had gotten involved with a Christian church in Seattle and a woman missionary encouraged him to tell the truth about his fraudulent admission into Canada. Based on this information, Mah Wai, his wife, and son were admitted to the U.S. two weeks after their arrival.
Mah Wai, was naturalized as a United States citizen at San Bernardino, California in December 1947. In 1948 he applied for a nonquota visa for his wife through the office of the American Consul at Vancouver, B. C., Canada. The Seattle immigration office suggested that they contact the Los Angeles, California immigration office since the couple lived in Barstow, California.
There is a 1950 memo in the file that reports to the Seattle Immigration Director that Wong Tew Quay (Mary Wong Gee or Mary Tew Quay Gee) died at Loma Linda, California on 3 November 1949. She was living at Barstow, California at the time of her death.
Mah Wai’s file may have more details about how he managed to be admitted to the U.S. in spite of his admissions of fraud.
Added three books published in 2023 to the Resource Page
Mott Street: A Chinese American Family’s Story of Exclusion and Homecoming by Ava Chin
Everything I Learned, I Learned in a Chinese Restaurant: a memoir by Curtis Chin
The Middle Kingdom under the Big Sky by Mark T. Johnson