In April 1931 Ng Chin Gar 伍傳家 applied for a laborer’s return certificate, form 432. The Seattle Immigration Service wrote to the immigration office in El Paso, TX requesting a copy of his immigration file #5032/84-200. Ng Chin Gar handed over his certificate of identity #40650 which was issued to him as a “Columbus refugee” in El Paso, TX in 1923. It would be given back to him when he returned from his trip. They verified that he had the necessary $1,000 liberty bond. To qualify for reentry into the U.S., he had to return within one year and still be the owner of the $1,000 bond. Since he fulfilled all the requirements for a laborer under the Chinese Exclusion Act, the El Paso office recommended that Ng be issued a return certificate. While waiting for the approval of his documents, he was staying at the Wah Yuen store in his departure city, Seattle. He returned to the Port of Seattle in April 1932 and was admitted.
“Ng Chin Gar, Form 432, Return Certificate photo,” 1934, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives-Seattle, Box 911, File 7032/1072.
Ng Chin Gar applied again for a return certificate in 1934. He was working as a kitchen helper in Austin, Texas. He was married with two sons, ages 12 and 6 years old. In his application, he stated that he originally arrived as a refugee with the U.S. army and was admitted near Columbus, New Mexico, in 1917. He went to Mexico when he was twenty years old (ca.1912).
The Immigrant Inspector Roy M. Porter made a note saying: This certificate bears the following indorsement: “Registered under Public Resolution No. 29 approved November 5, 1928.”
[This was part of a later effort to standardize and reaffirm the validity of Chinese registration certificates issued under earlier exclusion laws.]
In 1935, Ng Chin Gar was unable to return within the one-year deadline because his wife was ill. He applied to Charles L. Hoover, the American Consulate General in Hong Kong for an Overtime Certificate. Ng was asked why his wife’s mother couldn’t take care of her. Hoover approved the certificate because he thought if Ng appealed, it was likely the certificate would be approved. Ng was admitted to the Port of Seattle on 22 May 1936.
The following information is not included in the Ng Chin Gar’s CEA file:
Army camp Columbus, N.M., auto truck supply train about to leave for Mexico / Shulman . New Mexico Columbus, 1916. [?] Photograph. https://www.loc.gov/item/2002719615/.
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.
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.
“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.
“Charley Dea Light-Grade Hand Laundry Price List,” ca. 1916, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Lee Chung Hing case file, Box RS 285, RS 34366.
In 1916 Lee Chung Hing, a laborer, applied to leave the United States from his home in Chicago, Illinois for a visit to China. His application for a laborer’s return certificate was rejected because he could not prove that he was a lawful resident of the United States. He had lived in the U.S. for about 36 years but did not have the required certificate of residence. When he originally entered the U.S. he was classified as a merchant. He presented his original merchant identification paper in 1916. It was not accepted.
John G. Sullivan, Immigration Inspector in Boston, interviewed those who Lee Chung Hing listed as his business partners at Quong Suey Lung Company in Boston in the 1890s. Chin Sing had been a partner of the firm for over thirty years but did not remember Lee Chung Hing. He had heard that Lee was a member of the firm but didn’t know him. Lee Chung Hing’s Caucasian witnesses, Luther Gaddis and William K. Jones, were both deceased by 1916. According to the inspector both witnesses had signed hundreds of affidavits for Boston Chinese years ago. They were not the most credible witnesses.
Lee Chung Hing was sixteen years old in 1880 when he first came to the United States. It was two years before the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. He lived in San Francisco as a merchant until about 1892, Boston for seven years, then Chicago where he was a laborer working in a laundry. Lee had a hard time getting the proper paper work for his return certificate. There was a lot of confusion about what documents were needed when the Act was first passed; Lee switched from being a merchant to a laborer; and different documents were required for each classification. Over thirty years had passed since he first arrived in the U.S. His witnesses couldn’t remember him and two had died.
On Lee’s application for a return certificate he claimed his friend of over twenty years, Dea Poon Suey borrowed $1050 from him to buy a laundry in Aurora, Illinois. In fact, the loan was only for $500. [The Scott Act 1888 severely restricted Chinese laborers who were already residing here from returning to China for visits. They could not reenter unless they owned property or held a business investment of $1,000 or more.1] The amount of his loan wasn’t enough to satisfy the law’s requirements. He did not have enough evidence to obtain a return certificate and was denied because lawful residence in the country had not been shown. He was giving the right to appeal. There is no indication that he appealed.
1 John Jung, Chinese Laundries: Tickets to Survival on Gold Mountain (Yin & Yang Press), 2007, 31.
“Goon Fon affidavit photo,” 1904, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Goon Fon file, Seattle, Box 1001, Case 7032/3500.
Goon Fon was born at Hom Quon village, Sun Woi district, China on 14 January 1883. He came to the United States with his father. Goon Sam, arriving at the Port of San Francisco about 1894 and went to live in Port Townsend, Washington. His father returned to China in 1902 and died there.
On 2 July 1904, A. F. Learned, postmaster; William P. Wyckoff, Customs House official; and H. L. Tibbals, of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington, swore in an affidavit they had been residents of Port Townsend for more than twenty years and were U.S. citizens. They testified that Goon Fon’s father, Goon Sam, was a bona fide merchant for more than twelve years, and a member of the Wing Sing Company, on Washington Street near Quincey Street in Port Townsend. Before leaving for China in 1902, Goon Sam gave his son a $500 share in the business.
The business closed about 1906 and Goon Fon lost his investment.
After his father left Goon Fon went to New York City and worked in the Mon Fong Restaurant on Pell Street, and then a laundry. He came back to Seattle and worked in a cannery in Alaska for Goon Dip, then moved to Spokane, Washington.
In 1924 Goon Fon applied for a return certificate as a laborer. His only proof of his status was the 1904 affidavit. He secured a $1,000 bond for the required proof of the necessary debt owed to a laborer to enable him to return to the U.S. His application was approved. While he was there, he married and had a son. When it was time to come back in 1925, he obtained a Nonquota Immigration Visa from the American Consular Service in Hongkong with his photo. He was admitted at the Port of Seattle, obtained his Certificate of Identity, and went to live in Troy, New York where he was a dishwasher at a restaurant.
In 1937 Goon Fon was living at Noodles Café, 512 Main Street, Spokane, Washington. He wanted to make another trip to China. According to his application for his “Return Certificate for Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborers,” he had a $1,000 loan due from Hui Cheung, who was living at 126 ½ North Wall Street, Spokane. The interrogation was thorough. Goon Fon was asked about his early life in Port Townsend—the Chinese businesses and their exact locations, the business owners, and the whereabouts of other businesses. Hui Cheung was his witness and his answers agreed with Goon Fon’s.
The Seattle Immigration office wrote to San Francisco Immigration to verify when Goon Sam and his son entered San Francisco. They could not find any record of Goon Sam in their indexes of ship manifests or other records. On 9 July 1937 they disapproved Goon Fon’s application for a laborer’s return certificate, but he had the right to appeal. The file does not say how his lawyer won his case, but the appeal was sustained, and he left for China. He returned in July 1938.
“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.
