“Lai Hing,Consular Certificate” 1919, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Lai Hing (Ow Dun Poy), Box 889, File 7032/518.
In November 1919 Lai Hing, age 55, was filing papers for a laborer’s return certificate, Form 432. His witness, Lee Wing, presented his Certificate of Residence #28505 issued in New York City in March 1894. Lee Wing borrowed $1,000 from Lai Hing, paid in silver and bills, to buy a laundry business in Plainfield, New Jersey.
Lai Hing also presented his Certificate of Residence #43340, issued at Portsmouth, New Hampshire in March 1894. It was examined and returned to him. He first arrived in the United States in 1882 in San Francisco just after the Act had passed and before papers were required. Lai Hing’s marriage name was Jew She and his wife had bound feet. They had two children, a married daughter, Ah Me, age 24, and a son, Ng Gee Shung, age 13. Lai Hing’s application was approved and he received a Consular Certificate with his photo attached.
Lai Hing returned in October 1920 at the Port of Seattle and was admitted, and he returned to his home in New York City. Lai Hing went through the process of applying to make another trip to China as a nonquota immigration in December 1924. Much of the information he gave was the same as his earlier application. He had loaned Lee Loy $1,000 paid in $100 dollar bills. Loy was a carpenter at 17 Mott Street in New York City. Correspondence from New York Immigrant Inspector refers to Lai Hing as Lai Jing but the other information agrees with the rest of the file.
Lai Hing returned in December 1925. His next trip was in October 1930. He was now sixty years old. He was a laundryman at Charley Sing Laundry in Plainfield, New Jersey. Lai Hing did not return within the statutory one-year period, so his certificate of residence was cancelled.
“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.
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
“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.
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.
“Certificate of Residence No. 127194, Huie Taong, 1894, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Huie Taong , Seattle Box 44, file 31-223.
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.
Affidavit for Application for Return Certificate, 1905, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Huie Taong Box 44, file 31-223.
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.
Wagen checked with Hon. Henry M. White, Commissioner of Immigration who told the attorney the rules and documents needed:
“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.”
“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.
“White to Wagen, Correspondence 35038/372, 19 July 1920,” CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Huie Taong, file 31-223.
Quick summary of the earlier post: Ah Soon’s file starts in 1899, when as a cook (laborer) living in Helena, Montana, he is applying to visit China. He returns in 1900. In 1907 he was a merchant living in Seattle working for Ah King Company. He visited China again in 1907 and returned in 1909.
There is no activity in Ah Soon’s file from 1909 to February 1913.
28 Feb 1913 Ah Soon applied to travel aboard under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Regulations of the Department of Commerce and Labor with the status of a domiciled broker. He had merchant status and claimed that he owned 2,000 shares of the Canton Province Mining Company in Seattle.
Ah Soon, Form 431, Application of Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Merchant, Teacher, or Student, for Preinvestigation of Status, 28 Feb 1913, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ah Soon file, Seattle RS Box 219, RS30384.
3 March 1913 White witness, George F. Ober, a thirty-nine-year-old mining engineer in Seattle, testified that he had lived in Seattle for over three years. He knew Ah Soon was a merchant and real estate broker who bought and sold restaurants and laundries. Soon worked with Wong Shin How at a curio exhibit for an Ah King concern at the Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition in Seattle in1909. Ah Soon was a stockholder in the Canton Province Mining Company and sold shares of the company on commission. The Mining Investment officers and trustees were President: Ah King; Vice President: Thomas W. Snaith; Secretary and Treasurer: George F. Ober; Trustee L.L. Thorp; Managers: Yee Onlai, Assistant Secretary: Louie Kee.
Ah Soon, “Mining Investment,” CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, RS Box 219, RS30384.
Joseph H. Beaven, another white witness, stated that he was fifty-four years old and a superintendent of Baptist mission work. He had known Ah Soon about twenty years. Ah Soon was employed and a stockholder at the Ah King Company. About twenty years ago Ah Soon was a cook at a restaurant in Spokane but presently had an interest in his brother’s store, the Ah King Company.
Later that day, Ah Soon testified that he had misplaced his certificate of residence but was classified as a merchant. He was a mining stockbroker, living at the Ken Chung Lung Store in Seattle. He owned 2,000 shares in the Canton Province Mining Company. He paid $.06 to acquire a share and got 15% commission on every dollar’s worth of stock he sold. He had sold over $2,000 worth of stock in a little over two years. He also sold goods on commission from the Ken Chong Lung Company. He denied doing any manual labor in the past twelve months. He signed his statement in Chinese characters.
12 March 1913 A letter from the Ellis DeBruler, Immigration Commissioner, stated that he was not satisfied that Ah Soon met the requirements to receive a return certificate as a domiciled exempt broker. DeBruler thought Ah Soon’s white witnesses also could not testify that he met the requirements.
20 March 1913 J. V. Stewart, Chinese Inspector, put a note dated 20 March 1913, into Ng Ah Soon file saying that he found Ng Ah Soon acting as cashier in the Peking restaurant in Tacoma, Washington. And J. A. Wilkens, A.S. Fulton, and watchman Sylvester, were witnesses also.
Ah Soon, “Stewart Note,”1913, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, RS Box 219, RS30384.
8 July 1913 Ah Soon testified that his “baby name” was Gong Sen, Hock (Hok) Fong was his marriage name, and his American name was Ah Soon. He was fifty years old, born in Har Ping village, Sun Ning District, China. He originally came to the U.S. through San Francisco. He had been back to China twice, in KS 24 or 25 (1898 or 1899), returning KS 26 (1900) through Port Townsend as a laborer. He went to China in KS 33(1907) and returned in 1909 through Seattle as a merchant and a member of Ah King Company. In 1913 he was living in Tacoma and working as a laborer at the New York Laundry. He earned $40 per month. Charley Dan owned the laundry. He based his claim for a return certificate on his loan to Charley Dan for $1,100 so Charley could buy an interest in the Peking Café and buy a laundry. Ah Soon got the money from his brother, Ah King, [sometimes he says Ah King was his cousin] when he sold his interest in the Ah King Company store in Seattle.
Ah Soon was married to Lou Shee. They had two children, a boy and a girl. Their son, Gong Sen/Kwong Sin was born in 1908, was six years old and their daughter, Ah Que, was about fourteen years old.
Ah Soon was cautioned that he should not collect any part of his loan to Charley Dan while he was in China because it would change his status and he would not be able to return to the U.S. Ah Soon signed his statement in Chinese and English. Charley Dan, baby name Men Dan, was his witness. Dan was married and twenty-eight years old. He and his wife and fifteen-month-old daughter, Annie Dan, were living at the laundry at 1508 South D Street in Tacoma. Dan was a native-born citizen. He went to China when he was six years old, returning when he was nineteen years old and was admitted at Port Townsend.
9 July 1913 A letter from the Immigrant Inspector in Tacoma to the Commissioner of Immigration in Seattle, confirmed that Ah Soon was issued a Certificate of Residence #14906 as a laborer at Helena, Montana on 24 Feb 1894. [Ah Soon status was changed from a merchant to a laborer.]
Ah Soon, “Letter 30,564,”1913, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, RS Box 219, RS30384.
5 August 1913 Ah Soon made another trip to China.
8 April 1915 Ah Soon was unable to return within the allowed one-year period because he was sick with rheumatism. He provided corroborative statements by Chin Gee Hee and Ng Kun. Ah Soon obtained a Chinese Overtime Certificate.
Ah Soon, “Overtime Certificate 25/1915,”1915, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, RS Box 219, RS30384.
9 May 1915 Ah Soon returned from China in May. Upon his arrival he testified that a son, Quong Ock was born after he left China in July 1913. He now had two sons. His daughter died about 1912.
12 July 1915 Ah Soon applied for the laborer’s return certificate to return to China. He recently had made a loan of $1,000 to Mah Fook Hing, a merchant at Yik Fong Company at 705 King Street in Seattle. Hing was interviewed and although he did not sign a promissory note, he substantiated Soon’s testimony. Ah Soon planned to leave for Hong Kong on the July 17 and would be staying at the Sam Yik Company. This is the last document in his file, so he probably did not return to the U.S.
Ah Soon’s Chinese Exclusion Act case file starts in 1899. His affidavit, sworn on 12 April 1899 to the Honorable Collector of Customs in Port Townsend, Washington, states that he was a laborer applying for a certificate of departure. Ah Soon was a cook living in Helena, Montana when he applied.
“Ah Soon Affidavit,” 1899, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ah Soon file, Seattle Box RS219, File RS30384.
He returned to the U.S. on 14 March 1900 with the status of laborer and was admitted.
By 1907 Ah Soon’s life had changed. He was now living in Seattle, Washington, and a merchant at the Ah King Company. In April 1907 he started the process of obtaining the necessary documents to make a trip to China. He swore in an affidavit that he was a bona fide merchant for the Ah King Company and that he had been a member of the firm for one year and did no labor except that was necessary in the conducting of business. He was visiting China to bring his wife, Louis She, and his seven- year-old daughter, Ah Keo, back with him. He would retain his interest in Ah King Company. His photo was attached to the affidavit.
“Ah Soon Affidavit,” 1907, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ah Soon file, RS30384.
On 26 April 1907, G. W. Upper testified concerning the application of Ah Soon for a certificate of departure and return. Upper lived at 213 18th Avenue, Seattle. His business was in the Colman Building at West and Wheeler. He had been living in Seattle for seventeen years. The Ah King Company was formerly called Wah Yuen Company and Ah King had always been the head of it. Ah Soon managed the company while Ah King was in San Francisco on business. Soon did not do manual labor. Upper was formerly a teller at the National Bank of Commerce where Ah King Company did business and Ah Soon had the authority to sign checks on the company account. Upper did not know the amount of capital stock of the company but Ah King owned the building and paid more than $30,000 for it. They had a wholesale business and supplied Chinese camps throughout the West and Northwest.
The next day, witness Charles I. Lynch was interrogated. He had been living in Seattle for twenty-two years and was employed at the Post Office for the last eight years. He recognized a photo of Ah Soon and identified him as a member of the Ah King Company. He had known him about nine months. Some of the members of the firm were Ah King, Charley Sing, Ah Foon, and Ah Soon. Besides selling Chinese merchandise, they took contracts for cannery help for five canneries. They also sold produce from a 30-acre farm south of Seattle at Duwamish Junction.
Ah Soon was re-interviewed on 2 May 1907. He said he was 44 years old; born at Har Pong Village, San Ning, Canton, China. His other name was Hock Fong. He first came to the U.S. in KS 8 (1882), arriving in California. He was married and had one daughter. He was a laborer working for his brother, Ah King in Seattle for about two years. He was in Helena, Montana before that for over ten years working as a cook at French Charlie’s. He had a $1,000 interest at the Ah King Co. which sold Chinese groceries and general merchandise. He named ten of the members of the firm who each owned a $1,000 interest in the company.
Ah Soon said there were two other people in Seattle who were from his village, Har Pang. They were Hock Hung, in Wah Yuan’s store and Ah King. He said they were cousins. [In other interviews Ah Soon said that Ah King was his brother.] Ah Chung, a farmer, was another cousin from Har Pong living in Waitsburg, Washington.
G. W. Upper was recalled to testify on 6 May 1907. He swore that he had known Ah Soon at least four years and that he still believed that Ah Soon had been a member of Ah King Co. for more than a year. Although he had known who Ah Soon was for four years, he knew him more intimately on a business level for the last two years.
A few days later, Ah Soon was recalled to testify. He was asked how long he knew Charles I. Lynch (about two years) and G. W. Upper (about five years). The Inspector pointed out that in his previous statement, Ah Soon said that he had only known Upper for two years. Ah Soon agreed that two years was incorrect; it was about five years.
Charles I. Lynch was also recalled on 9 May. Lynch was asked about his earlier statement that he knew Ah Soon for about nine months. Lynch said that was incorrect. He knew Ah Soon for more than a year. [To qualify as a reliable witness, the witness was required to know the affiant for one year or more.] He was sure Ah Soon still had an interest in the Ah King Co.
On 10 May 1907 Ah Soon’s Application for Preinvestigation of mercantile status for his trip to China was approved. Two days later Ah Soon left on a train for Vancouver. BC to start his trip.
Ah King, manager of Ah King Company, testified on 16 June 1908 that Ah Soon was still a member of his company. Ah Soon’s re-admittance application was approved.
Ah Soon’s 1909 Application for Admission as a Merchant included the following information: Ah Soon, Hok Fong (marriage name), age 46, height 5 feet 3-3/4 inches, scar on back of left hand, wife and two children born in Har Ping, Sun Ning, China; residence at Ken Chung Lung Company, Seattle, member of company for one and one-half years, $1,000 interest in company, twelve partners, position in firm: “traveling man;”
Mar Hing, a merchant for the Ah King Company, testified that Ah Soon was a member of the company with $1,000 interest whose name appeared on the partnership books. Ah Soon was a temporary salesman, assistant to Ah King, and sometimes a traveling salesman for the store.
Ah Soon returned to the U.S. on 13 March 1909 and was admitted at Seattle as a returning domiciled Chinese merchant.
[Ah Soon’s file from 1912 to 1915 will continue in the next blog entry.]
“Gim Bing, Statement of Registered Chinese Laborer…Intention of Returning,” photo, 1908, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Gim Bing file, Seattle, Box 1091, Case 9347/9-3.
In October 1898, Gim Bing started the process to make a trip back to China. It would be his first trip to his home village since he arrived in San Francisco in 1882. Because he was a Chinese laborer, he needed to be registered, have two witnesses, preferably Caucasian, to swear that they had known him for over a year, and he needed to be owed at least $1,000 as an assurance that he [and not someone who had assumed his identity] would return to collect the money due him.
E.L. Brunton and George H. Barber swore in an affidavit that they were both over the age of 21, citizens of the United States, that they were well acquainted with Gim Bing for over three years, and that he was a gardener in Walla Walla, Washington. They knew that Gim Bing was owed $1,374.48 by Hoy Loy, a long-time resident of Walla Walla.
Gim Bing’s affidavit said that he had obtained a Certificate of Residence and was a resident of Walla Walla for more than seven years. Hoy Loy owed him $1,374.48 for work performed before 1 February 1898 and Gim Bing would collect the amount due him on his return. His photo was attached to the affidavit. Hoy Loy also swore that he owed Gim Bing $1,374.47 for labor he had done for him.
In late September 1903, Gim Bing started the paperwork for his next trip to China. He filed an affidavit and attached his photo. He was listed as a Chinese laborer, registered, residing in U.S., and wishing to leave for China and return within one year. He had debts of one thousand dollars from Hoe Sing and Lee Chung, both from Walla Walla for $500 each.
The Bureau of Immigration compared Gim Bing’s application to the original information in their files and found that everything agreed. Chinese Inspector R. B. Scott reported that Hoe Sing and Lee Chung were indebted to Gim Bing for $500 each.
On 5 November 1904, Gim Bing arrived at Port Townsend, Washington. He was questioned again to make sure he was the same person who had left one year earlier. He testified that he had leased a garden for the last six or seven years from Mr. Hill in Walla Walla. He was paid $600 a year. Hoey Sing owed him $550 for wages from three or four years ago. Lee Shung also owed him $300 for wages and a loan of $200 from five years ago.
Gim Bing’s next trip to China was in September 1908. He filed a “Statement of Registered Chinese Laborer About to Depart from the United States with the Intention of Returning Thereto.” It included photos of Gim Bing with front and side view showing his queue. [Wikipedia: Hair on top of the scalp is grown long and is often braided, while the front portion of the head is shaved.] He stated that he was 43 years old, from Walla Walla, a gardener, and was owed $550 from Young/Yung Foo and $480 from Moy Kee, both from Walla Walla.
A few weeks later, Gim Bing was interviewed again and said he was born in Num Mon Village, Sun Ning District, Kwong Tung Province. He had been living in the U.S. for twenty-six years [since 1882]. He was asked if her knew anyone from his village in China who was living in Walla Walla. Jim Dune, a cook, was living nearby in North Yakima. Yung Foo and Moy Kee were interviewed, and their statements agreed with Gim Bing. Gim Bing returned on 4 June 1909 and re-admitted to the U.S.
Gim Bing applied to visit China again in October 1912. He had made three trips to China and every time he completed the same paperwork with updated information about who owed him money. Wong Chew, a gardener, owed him $1,000 for his interest in Mrs. Villa’s place.
In January 1921, Gim Bing applied for a return certificate as a merchant of the Kwong Chung Sing Company in Walla Walla, Washington. He gave his marriage name as Gim Sing Wing, He was fifty-five years old. He said he was born in Lung On Village. [In 1908 he said he was born in Num Mon Village, but the interrogator did not question him on the discrepancy.] He was questioned about his previous four trips to China. He and his wife, Pon Shee, had four children. He was now a partner and salesman with a $1,000 interest in his store. They sold about $13,000 to $14,000 in Chinese goods every year, mostly teas, tobacco, cigars, rice, and canned goods.
One of Gim Bing’s white witness was William George Sargant, a citizen of Great Britan who had filed his first papers after living in Walla Walla for about nine years. Sargant was asked if he had seen Gim Bing selling vegetables in the last year. He had not.
Gim Bing’s other Caucasian witness was James E. Ward, who had lived in Walla Walla over twenty-two years. Ward was a meter reader for the Power & Light Company.
Lee Yun Nam was also a witness for Gim Bing. He arrived in the U.S. in 1915 at San Francisco as a student but soon came to Walla Walla and became a partner at Kwong Chung Sing Co. with a $1,000 interest. The interrogator asked if Gim Bing had been working as a gardener or in a laundry in the last year. Lee said that Gim Bing had not worked as a laborer.
The Acting Commissioner approved Gim Bing’s application but asked that it be noted that the application had not been properly filled out and that at one time in the past Gim Bing was found to be a laborer when he claimed to be a merchant.
“Gim Bing, Return Certificate,” 1927, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Gim Bing file, Seattle, Box 1091, Case 9347/9-3.
In early September 1927, Gim Bing, now age 62, filed for a return certificate for his sixth trip to China. Once again, he was applying as a laborer so he needed to prove that $1,000 or more was owed to him. Wong Chew still owed him $1,000 from when he sold him his interest in the McCool’s garden. Gim Bing sold him the garden, the implements, tools, a truck, wagons, horses, and crops for $2,000. Wong Chew testimony agreed with Gim Bing’s.
Gim Bing returned and was admitted at the Port of Seattle on 13 August 1928. It is the last document in his file.
Leong & Co. Store Photo, 1923, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Leong Hoey file, Seattle, Box 950, Case 7032/2037.
Leong Yuen and Leong Hoey at Leong & Co. store, 230 1/2 Third St., Portland, Oregon
According to a newspaper article included in the file [Oregon Journal, Portland, Oregon, Nov, 11, 1923, p. 1, col. 1] a gang robbed the store and shot, Leong Hoey, the proprietor, early in November. Judge Stapleton sentenced C. H. Jackson, leader of a gang, to ten years in the penitentiary and Vito Dellino received a 2-1/2 year sentence.
In October 1932 Leong Hoey [sometimes spelled Huey or Houie] applied for a laborer’s return certificate. He owned a $1000 Fourth Liberty Loan Bond, worked in a fish cannery, was married, and had a son, See Gok, who was 8 years old. Leong Hoey arrived in the U.S. in 1910 and was admitted as the minor son of a merchant.
His file also contained a letter from his brother, Leong Yuen, answering a charge by the city Attorney that the store at 230 1/2 had been used for gambling. He explained that the rear of the building had been leased to a Chinese society to be used as a meeting place.
Leong Hoey’s application was denied. He appealed and it was approved. He left for China from Seattle on 7 October 1932 and returned the following year.
[More about the robbery and the gambling charge next time…]
