Category Archives: Affidavit

Chew Fen – Merchant then Laborer – Butte, Seattle, Bismarck

Affidavit, Certificate of Identity, Certificate of Residence, Chinese Overtime Certificate, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On 12 April 1897 the following residents of the city of Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana each swore that he is acquainted with Chew Fen and that they had known him three years or more, that Chew Fen is not a laborer, he was a partner of the firm of Po Ning Tong & Company, dealers in general Chinese merchandise; and doing business at #9 West Calena street in Butte; he was not engaged in manual labor during the last year except as was necessary in the conduct of his business as a merchant, and that he was about to leave for China with the intention of returning to the United States. The affidavit was signed by: Charles. T. Lomas, general merchandise; J. A. Murray, banker; J. S. Hammond, M.D. physician, and witnessed by Francis Brooks, Notary Public.

“Chew Fen, admittance form,” 1898, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Chew Fen (Jung Won Lai), Box 901, File 7032/805.

Chew Fen returned the following year. He was thirty-five years old, a merchant for Po Ping [Ning] Tong & Co., Butte, Montana, was admitted to the United States at Port Townsend, Washington, on 19 August 1898. His admittance form says that he had a scar on the back of his left ear and small scars on the back of his neck. He had lived in San Francisco for ten years and Butte for six years. He could not speak English. He said there were cable and electric cars in Butte, there was no grass in Butte, and it was smoky and foggy. He may have been mixing up some of the characteristics of San Francisco and Butte.

On 22 July 1914 Chew Fen, applied to visit China. He testified that he was 49 years old, his married name was Jung Woon Lai, and his boyhood name was Jung Shu Fun. He had a certificate of deposit for $1,000 at Miners Savings Bank & Trust Co. in Butte. He signed his name in Chinese characters. His application was approved.

He returned on 21 July 1915. When questioned he gave the same information as when he left but added that his wife, Fong She was 39 years old, and had natural feet. He was admitted and received his certification of identity.

In May 1918, Chew Fen applied for a trip to China as a laborer. He gave his married name as Tian Wan Lai, and his boyhood name as Tian Chew Fen. There is no explanation about why these names are different than the names he gave in earlier interrogations. He first entered the U.S. at San Francisco in KS 8 [1882]. He was now living in Butte, Montana and was a laundryman for Wing Lee Laundry. He had been a merchant with the Ho Ning Hong [Po Ning Tong] & Company for seven years until the business closed.

Chew Fen returned in April 1919 and gave his marriage name as Jung Woon Lai. He testified that he had not taken any letters, money, packages, or messages from anyone in the U.S. to give to anyone in China. He had not visited with a U.S. resident or the resident’s home while in China. And he had not attended a wedding of a U.S. resident or the son of a resident. These were common questions asked of returning Chinese. Immigration probably wanted to be sure that the traveler wasn’t laying the groundwork for a “paper son” to come to the U.S. Chew Fen was admitted by a unanimous vote when he returned in May 1919 and he received his certificate of identity.

Chew Fen was living in Seattle when he applied to visit China in October 1922. His witness was Jung Bong, a cannery worker with a certificate of residence who had never been out of the United States. When Chew Fen returned to Seattle in 1923 his medical examination found that he had clonorchiasis “liver fluke, a dangerous, contagious disease.” He was detained, denied admission, and deported on 25 October 1923, a little over three weeks after he arrived.

Chew Fen was reexamined in December 1923 and was disease free. In spite of this, his certificate of identity was cancelled in May 1924. Written in red ink across an 1898 memo from James G. Swan, Port Townsend Immigration Commissioner, “Seattle, Wash., July 29, 1915, Canceled, Certificate of Identity, issued this day [signed] G. H. Mangels, Inspr.”

“Immigration Memo re: Chew Fen,” 1924, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chew Fen,7032/805.

Chew Fen did not give up easily. He applied for readmittance in November 1924 and obtained a Nonquota Immigration Visa. Maurice Walk, American Vice Consul at Hong Kong certified a Chinese Overtime Certificate for Chew Fen and F. Pierce Grove, M.D. PhD declared Chew healthy. Chew Fen, age 57, was admitted and received a new certificate of identity shortly after he arrived at the Port of Seattle on 27 December 1924. He gave his place of residence as Bismarck, South Dakota.

“Chew Fen, Nonquota Visa” 1924, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chew Fen,7032/805.

Chew Fen applied for a return certificate in December 1930, but the application was cancelled in June 1931. It doesn’t say who cancelled the application–immigration or Chew Fen. No reason was given and there was no more information in the file. [I have been unable to find more information from various sources.]

Charley Kee (Ng Hock On) – Seattle Merchant

Affidavit, Application for return certificate as merchant, Certificate of Residence, Form 431, laborer, Partner, Photographs, Re-Entry Permit, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
A historical photograph of Yim Gee (also known as Yim Kee), a Chinese merchant in Washington, with a handwritten document in the background detailing his affidavit and personal information.
“Charley Kee (Ng Hock On) Affidavit,” 1892, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

In December 1892, Yim Gee [in later testimony he is known as Yim Kee, Charley Kee, and Ng Hock On  伍學端], asked for permission to file an affidavit to certify he was a merchant at the Gim Lung Company in Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington. He was twenty-six years old and was born in Canton, China. He landed in San Francisco in 1880 and came to Port Townsend in 1889. His photograph was included in the document. Two white witnesses, J. W. Jones and L. B. Hastings, swore that he was a reputable citizen and they had known him for more than two years.

Charley Kee applied for a Certificate of Departure for a trip to China in 1900. Although his application was approved, there is nothing in the file that shows that he left the U.S.

In 1911 while working as a merchant and partner at King Chung Lung & Co. in Seattle, (Ng) Hock On, applied for preinvestigation of his status as a merchant. He was forty-seven. His childhood name was Yim Kee and he was born in Sai Ping Hong village. His wife was of the Lee family and they had two sons. His elder son, Tai Jung, was 18 years old and going to school in Seattle. His other son, Tai Sin, was in China. His firm sold Chinese goods in Pendleton, Walla Walla, Umatilla, and other nearby towns.

Ah King, a prominent Chinese citizen in Seattle, and manager of the King Chung Lung Co., was a witness for Hock On  學端. There were nine other partners. Ah King testified that Hock On paid $500 for his interest in the company and was a bona fide partner. Hock On’s application required two credible (Caucasian) witnesses. His witnesses were C. M. Rodman, a salesman for the Norris Safe & Lock Co., and J. J. McAvoy, a storekeeper. His application with his photo was approved.

A black and white photograph of a young Asian man in formal attire, with neatly styled hair, presenting an official document regarding his merchant status.
“Ng Hock On, Form 431,” 1911, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547

Hock On returned in May 1913. During his admission interview he said he wanted to surrender his “choc chee” (Certificate of Residence) and obtain a Certificate of Identity. [His Certificate of Residence is in his file but did not apply for a Certificate of Identity.]

A historical Certificate of Residence document issued to Charley Kee, a Chinese laborer residing in Port Townsend, Washington. The certificate includes a photograph of Kee and contains handwritten details about his identity, age, and local residence.
“Charley Kee, Certificate of Residence,” 1894, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

He applied for another trip to China in 1921. He gave his American name as Charlie Kee. He was still a partner at King Chung Lung Company at 707 King Street in Seattle. The capital stock of the company was a little over $35,000 and the company did over $70,000 in business in 1920. Kee’s Caucasian witnesses were Daniel Landon, an attorney, and Victor K. Golden, an automobile mechanic. B. A. Hunter, Examining Inspector, visited the store and saw no reason to doubt Kee’s testimony.

Hock On returned to the U.S. in May 1925. He declared he had four sons. His son, Ng Tai Sheung was admitted in April 1926 and his son, Ng Tai Der was admitted in July 1927 at Seattle. They were attending school in Pullman, Washington.

In 1930 Hock On was again applying for a reentry permit for his upcoming trip to China. The Seattle District Commissioner wrote to the Commissioner in Washington, D.C., asking that they compare Kee’s Certificate of Residence with their original record. The original certificate agreed with the duplicate on file at D.C., so they issued a Return Permit.

An immigration reentry permit issued to Ng Hock On, featuring his photograph, personal details, and official stamps.
“Ng Hock On, “Permit to Reenter the U.S,” 1930, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

Hock On returned to Seattle in August 1931. He applied for another trip to China in July 1934. This time he was applying as a laborer. He left Seattle on 21 July 1934. There is nothing in the file to indicate that he returned to Seattle but there is 1949 correspondence between immigration offices in Seattle, Walla Walla, Spokane, Washington; Vancouver, B.C.; and San Francisco, California; pertaining to Hock On’s sons Lee Tin Yee and Ng Tai Dor, and Ng Tai Sheung.

Hock On’s Reference Sheet lists the name and file numbers for his wife and four sons.

Chin Hing Chung – Kennebec, Maine

Affidavit, interview questions, Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, son of citizen, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chin Soy, a U.S. born citizen, wanted to bring his son in China, Chin Hing Chung, to the United States.

Chin Soy swore in an affidavit in March 1937 at Kennebec, Maine, that he was born in the United States about 1880 and was therefore a U.S. citizen. He was issued a Certificate of Identity in Seattle, Washington, in 1916 and was a resident of Waterville, Maine.

“Chin Soy Affidavit photos,” 1937, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Chin Hing Chung, Box 733, File 7030/10206.

Between 1905 and 1932, he had visited China five times. On his 1905 trip he married Dong Shee. They had six children. In 1937 Chin Soy was applying to have his son, Chin Hing Chung, come to the United States with the status as the son of a U.S. native. According to the amended section 1993 (48 Stat. 797) children born abroad to U.S. citizens prior to May 24, 1934 were citizens. The ruling stated that: 

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child.  In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.

In 1937 Chin Hing Chung, marriage name Chin Kung Pon, was twenty years old (American reckoning). During Chin’s hearing he was reminded that it was his burden to prove he was not subject to exclusion. On 9 August 1931 he testified that he was born at Soo Oon village, Lock Toon, Sun Ning district, China on 25 January 1917. During Chin’s interrogation he was asked about his parents, their siblings, his siblings and nieces and nephews and his grandparents. He described his home as a five-room brick house with tile floors in all rooms and an open court paved with stone. It had two doors, with two windows in each bedroom. The windows all had iron bars and wooden shutters. The windows under the loft had glass. There was a shrine loft in the parlor. There were about 500 or 600 houses in the village. He was asked about the layout of the houses in the village, the width of the streets, and where the market and social hall were located. The interviewer asked specific questions, such as, who lives in the first house, fifth row, north of main street, his name and age, and number of their children and their names. Similar questions were asked about other people in the village. Did the village have an ancestral hall? A railway station? A school? Who were the teachers? Was there a fishpond? Did his father smoke? Were there any photographs or paintings in his house? Did his mother have a vegetable or flower garden? Did he attend his brother’s wedding feast? Was there anything in his house to represent his ancestors? Did his sister or sister-in-law have bobbed hair? Chin Hing Chung testified that there was a group picture taken of his mother, two brothers, sister and himself about 1922 or 1923. There were seven pages of interrogation.

Chin Hing Chung’s answers were compared to the interview answers of his father and his two previously landed brothers. It was decided that there were no significant differences. In spite of this, Chin Soy, the alleged father, and Chin Keong, the alleged brother, were interviewed again two weeks later. This time the Chinese Inspector, John A. Carney, noted these differences: direction in which the home village faces, the location of the head of the village, and the location of certain ancestral halls. The father and brother both said there was never a group photograph taken of the family. Their interviews were twenty-nine pages long. Their statements might include valuable anecdotal family information about their lives in China that may not be recorded in any other documents.

Chin Hing Chung was interviewed again about the difference between his testimony and his father and brother’s. His answers were satisfactory; the Chairman of the Board of Special Inquiry concluded that Chin Hing Chung was the son of a U.S. citizen, Chin Soy, who had been readmitted as a native-born citizen several times. And Chin Soy was in China at the time when Chin Hing Chung was conceived. Chin Hing Chung was admitted at the Port of Seattle on 3 September 1937 as a U.S. citizen, a little over six weeks after he arrived. He joined his father in Waterville, Maine.

The Reference Sheet in the file includes the names of Chin Hing Chung’s father and two brothers and their file numbers.

Chee Tuck – Port Gamble & Port Ludlow, WA Laborer

Affidavit, Application for laborer's return certificate, Certificate of Residence, Liberty Bond, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Eng See Fay Affidavit Photo,” 1899, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Chee Tuck, Box 891, File 7032/569.

The first document in Chee Tuck’s file is a 10 August 1899 affidavit. He was applying for a certificate of departure and return at Port Townsend, Washington for his trip to China. His witnesses, Eng See Fay, of the firm Lun Ying Co., and Clew Non, both swore that they were in debt to Chee Tuck for a total of $1,200.  A photo of Eng See Fay with his name written across the photo is attached to the affidavit. According to his interview, Chee Tuck obtained a Certificate of Residence in Oregon in 1894, he lived in Port Gamble, Washington; was 31 years old, and worked as a cook. He planned on leaving from the Port of Tacoma, Washington.

“Chee Tuck Affidavit,” 1904, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chee Tuck, Box 891, File 7032/569.

The file does not show when he returned but he applied to leave again in 1904. Lung Kee still owed him $1,100 and was his witness. There was no official note for the transaction, but A. F. Richardson, the Chinese Inspector, believed it was valid. A photo of Chee Tuck was attached to the affidavit. He was then living in Port Ludlow and was a cook in the Port Ludlow Hotel, making $45 a month.

Lung Kee was interviewed in 1905. He testified that he borrowed $1,100 in gold from Chee Tuck in 1902 so he could build a house in China. (Eng) Lung Kee obtained his chak chi (Certificate of Residence) in 1894 at Portland.
In 1905 another witness, Ng Gow, testified that he witnessed Chee Tuck transferring the $1,100 in gold to Lung Kee in 1902.  When Chee Tuck returned from China in September 1905, he was admitted as a duly registered Chinese laborer. He testified that he was twelve years old when he landed at the Port of San Francisco in 1880. From there he went to Port Townsend.

“Chee Tuck Form 432, Application Chinese Laborer for Return Certificate,” 1911, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chee Tuck, Box 891, File 7032/569.

Chee Tuck applied to leave in 1911. He gave his married name as Ng Yee Ham. His wife was Lee She and they had a six-year-old son named Koon Dock. They were living in Gim Lung village, Sunning District, China. Chee Tuck returned in November 1912 and was admitted.
In 1929 Chee Tuck, age 61, applied for a laborer’s return certificate. Another son was born after his last visit but now both sons had died. It is assumed that his debt due from Lung Kee was paid off because now he filled the debt requirement by owning a $1,000 Liberty Loan bond. Chee Tuck returned in November 1930 and was admitted. There is no more information in his file.

“Chee Tuck Form 432, Return Certificate Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborer,” 1929, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chee Tuck, Box 891, File 7032/569.

Chee Tuck’s file contains nothing jarring or unusual . He fulfilled all the requirements for a returning laborer. Immigration officials reviewed his paperwork and approved it. The photos stand out—one for his witness in 1899 and photos of Chee Tuck in 1904, 1911, and 1929. It had been eighteen years between Tuck’s last visits to China and by the time he went back, both of his sons had died. How sad.

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]

Lock Ling (Lock Loon) – Olympia and Seattle Business Owner

Affidavit, Affidavits, Certificate of Residence, marriage custom, Photos over several years, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1891 Lock Ling Affidavit
“Lock Ling (Lock Loon) Affidavit,”1891, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Box 1007, Lock Ling Seattle Box 1007, file 7032/3676.

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.

“Lock Ling (Lock Loon) and Locke Loui Affidavit photos,”1902, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, file 7032/3676.
“Lock Ling (Lock Loon) and Locke Loui Affidavit photos,”1902, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, file 7032/3676.

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.         

“Lock Ling (Lock Loon) and Look Kim Affidavit,”1910, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, file 7032/3676.
“Lock Ling (Lock Loon) and Look Kim Affidavit,”1910, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, file 7032/3676.

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 Ling (Lock Loon) Form 432,”1943, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, file 7032/3676.

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.] 

Yee Quin Wah – “Genial and Jolly Good Fellow”

Affidavit, Application for laborer's return certificate, merchant, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“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.

Lee Poo – Chinese Gardener, Walla Walla, Washington

Affidavit, appeal, Bayard-Zhang Treaty of 1888, Certificate of Residence, IOU, laborer, photo, promissory notes, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Affidavit photo of Lee Poo,” 1903, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85,
NARA-Seattle, Lee Poo, Box RS 019, file RS 664.

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