“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.
“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.]
“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.
“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.
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
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.
“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)
[A big thank you to Kevin Lee for sharing his family stories on the blog.]
Chear Cheo CHIN 陳超 (1871 – 1939) by Kevin Lee Better known in English as Cheo CHIN or CHIN Cheo, he spent 58 years of his 67½ year lifetime as a resident of the United States. He was born CHAN Don Fun (pronounced Gon Foon in the local Toisan dialect) on 22 August 1871 in the village of Mi Kong (Mai Gong), Hoi Ping (Kaiping) county, Kwangtung (Guangdong) Province, Imperial China.
He was the 2nd out of 6 consecutive generations – soon to be 7th– of my family to have lived, for a lengthy period of time, in Seattle, Washington State.
CHIN Cheo became “a well-known merchant in Seattle” (as described by Henry A. Monroe, Notary Public, lawyer and later U.S. Commissioner of Immigration), having established the Wing Sang store in Washington over a century ago.
Much of his life was pieced together from his sizeable 60 page National Archives file (almost 1 page for every year in the United States), case # 39184/2-12 (previously 682, 15844 and 30206) located at Sand Point Way, Seattle, along with his 2 Seattle-based sons’ case file numbers 28104 and 7031/325.
He was originally accompanied by his rice-farmer father, CHAN Gin Heung AKA CHIN Yen Hing (1845/46 – 1918/19), on a 21-day voyage across the Pacific Ocean to San Francisco, California in 1881 (“KS 7” or during Emperor Kuang-Su’s 7th year of reign), aged 9½ years old.
The hazardous journey across the wide ocean was made possible by Britain defeating Imperial China in 2 Opium Wars, which opened up 5 ports (including Canton and Hong Kong – both nearby to Mi Kong village) for Western trade, and the 1868 Burlingame Treaty (which legitimised Chinese citizens’ ability to emigrate to the USA). China was a poor country for various reasons (foreign intrusion and pilfering of riches, corruption of the Manchu government, floods and droughts) and therefore, men needed a way to support their families.
As discovered by reading the case file of CHIN Cheo, the borders into the USA prior to 1882 were porous. CHIN Cheo and his father, CHAN Gin Heung AKA CHIN Yen Hing, arrived into the port of San Francisco without any identity documents, stating to an Immigration Inspector decades later, that “we carried no papers at that time.”
Chinese immigrants – almost entirely males – came in droves; 300,000 arrived into the United States from the time of discovery of gold in California in 1849 until the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act (CEA) in 1882. When the CEA was passed through Congress and signed-off (after an initial veto) by the U.S. President Chester Arthur, it stemmed the flow of Chinese immigrants when it became a trickle for over 60 years, until it was repealed in 1943.
CHIN Cheo was determined to establish his life in Seattle, as a man of respect in the Chinese community. On the other hand, his father decided that he needed to head back to Mi Kong, China, to see his wife, Tom shee (my great great grandmother), after spending 13 years in the United States working as a laundryman.
CHIN Cheo studied English in Seattle, until about 12 years old. He then began working as a laborer (his tanned complexion from photos in his NARA case file suggests some time was spent outdoors), as a cook in Fort Madison, WA, and finally as a merchant/businessman for over 2 decades in the Chinatown International District. He accumulated significant savings, which he trustingly lent to other Chinese citizens to establish businesses in Seattle. Presumably, he was able to recover all the funds that he had lent out, as he lived a comfortable life in Seattle. Some of his funds, unfortunately, were gambled away by playing mahjong onboard steamships to China in 1899, 1903, 1912, 1919 and on ships returning to the USA in 1900, 1904, 1913 and 1921. Each of his 4 trips back to China, as an adult, produced a child or the adoption of a child.
CHIN Cheo was the organiser, founder, and managing partner of the Wing Sang Company (Seattle) also known as Wing Sang & Co., Seattle, in November 1908 (Chinese calendar) or December 1908 (Western calendar).
The 12 partners each put in capital of US$500, however, only 3 – 4 were active at any one time and drew a salary of US$50 per month. The first 7 partners listed below were specifically named by CHIN Cheo during Immigration interviews, with the last 5 assumed to be:
CHIN Cheo
CHONG Chew – the only one who held a US$600 partnership share
CHIN Sinn / Sing / Sim AKA Dan Way – the bookkeeper
MAW Wing Lee A.K.A. MAH Lee
Sho Hong
CHEONG Lai (pronounced Cheng Ai) – lived in Bremerton, WA
TAN Wing (pronounced Ton Wing) – lived in Bremerton, WA
GAR Fun
Mar Dan
Bing Tong (named in the 1915 Seattle City Directory)
Foo Loan (named in the 1922 Seattle City Directory)
Kwan You (named in a 1930 Seattle Times advertisement)
The Wing Sang Company / Wing Sang & Co., Seattle sold general Chinese merchandise including rice, tea, wine, oil, miscellaneous goods, herbs, drugs/medicines. It held inventory valued at US$2,000 in October 1911, and US$3,000 in December 1912 and April 1926.
The Wing Sang Company / Wing Sang & Co., Seattle was variously located at:
CHIN Cheo was also simultaneously a silent partner in Sang Loon Company / Sang Yuen Co. , having purchased a US$500 interest in 1923. It was newly-opened at 660 King Street, Seattle that year. He then became an active partner on 2 June 1930, ordering groceries, doing-up packages, marking-up prices, and arranging delivery to customers.
He resided at the back of the shop of Wing Sang (Seattle) for 2 decades, and then moved to an upper level apartment above the Sang Loon/Yuen Company in 1930.
CHIN Cheo was determined in life to leave a legacy inside both the village of Mi Kong, China (where his house and treasure chest are currently owned by his adopted son’s son) and in Seattle, USA (where his personal effects such as hat, ties, and spectacles are still being kept by a great granddaughter).
CHIN Cheo left behind 3 blood-related children, via Love SEETO or SEE TOW shee, who have all featured on this Seattle blog website (in addition to a 4th child – an adopted son from the markets near Mi Kong):
CHIN Cheo brought children into this world (the 1st born was in 1900 at age 29) and grandchildren (the 1st born was in 1926 when he was 55) – yet he never really knew them.
His 1st wife, Love SEETO was born in 1875 in Ngo Lew How village, in the Chikan (Chek-ham) region, Hoiping county, was foot-bound, and became heart-broken in 1918 upon learning that their no. 1 son, CHIN Wing Quong died in Seattle at the young age of 18 from self-medicating.
His 2nd wife was FONG / FUNG shee, whom he married at age 49 in 1920 (the 10th year of the Republic of China or “Rep. 10”) during his final trip back to Mi Kong village. He had no children with her, during the brief time he spent with her, before he sailed out of Hong Kong on board the S.S. Empress of Japan on 20 September 1921.
In a quirk of history, his granddaughter Siu Lung Yu’s 余小濃 future husband had a grandfather, LEE Sing Lip (1906 – 1993) and great grandfather, CHENG Fai Sin, both living in Seattle & Vancouver during the early 1900’s, and whom CHIN Cheo most likely knew.
He finally died on Monday 6 March 1939 at 11PM due to cancer of the sigmoid, a part of the bowel, after suffering obstructions for 17 days, and was buried in the Old Chinese Section of Mount Pleasant Cemetery, 700 West Raye Street, Seattle. Hundreds turned out for his funeral, where he was addressed as 陳公 (pronounced as “Chun gūng“) meaning Elder CHAN or Mr CHAN, Senior – a mark of respect for one of Seattle’s early and most reputable Chinese merchants.
Application of lawfully domiciled Chinese merchant, teacher, or student for pre investigation of status, made by 41-year-old CHIN Cheo 陳超, manager of Wing Sang Co., 17 December 1912, National Archives-Seattle file #39184/2-12CHIN Cheo 陳超 AKA CHIN Don Foon’s family relationships (including the author’s grandmother CHIN Hai Soon AKA “Ah Shoon, age 11, Female”) summarised onto 1 page by 2 U.S. Immigration Inspectors, after arriving back to Seattle on 10 October 1921 from his final trip ever in China, National Archives-Seattle file #39184/2-1255-year-old merchant CHIN Cheo 陳超 standing behind the counter of Wing Sang Company / Wing Sang & Co., located at 412 Seventh Ave South Seattle, on Saturday 12 December 1926. 2 nd from left, sitting on the bar stool, is his recently-sponsored 13-year-old son, Donald Wing Ung CHIN 陳榮 棟 [photo courtesy of Julie A. Chan]Descendants of CHIN Cheo 陳超 in December 1981 / January 1982 at his 77-year-old daughter CHIN Hai Soon / CHAN Mei Chen’s 陳美珍 matrimonial house in Num Bin Toon / Chuen (the Yee village) [photo courtesy of Kevin Lee]Descendants of CHIN Cheo 陳超 in November 2013 at his Mi Kong (Mai Gong) village house [photo courtesy of Julie A. Chan]Final resting place of CHIN Cheo 陳超 with his and Love SEETO / SEE TOW shee’s portraits, in the Old Chinese section of Mount Pleasant Cemetery, 700 West Raye Street, Seattle [photo courtesy of Kevin Lee]
“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.
