Category Archives: marriage custom

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

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

On 18 August 1891, Rossell G. O’Brien, Brigardier General of the Washington National Guard, signed an affidavit stating that Lock Loon (Lock Ling) of the Chung-Lee Co., Olympia, Washington, wished to visit Victoria, B.C. before making a trip to China. The document certified that Lock Ling was entitled to return to Olympia, Washington. James C. Horr, Mayor of Olympia, added a note saying that he knew Lock Loon personally. Lock Loon signed his affidavit in Chinese characters. An undated form from the Treasury Department said Lock Ling was admitted.

[Lock Ling’s file contains many pages and forms and covers the years 1891 to 1944. Sometimes the information is repetitive; frequently it is confusing and raises other questions. The file and therefore this summary is not meant to be a biography. Immigration officials used a series of interviews, affidavits, witnesses, and other documents to evaluate if they should admit someone to the United States. There were numerous restrictions and they wanted to make sure they were not admitting laborers, or anyone deemed unacceptable under the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was a complicated system.]

[The names Lock Ling and Lock Loon are interchangeable in these documents. This summary of the files will use the name the way it was spelled in the actual document.]

Rev. Clark Davis and C. P. Stone of Seattle were witnesses for Lock Ling’s trip to China in July 1897 and when he returned in September 1898. Lock Ling moved from Olympia and was then working at Mark Ten Suie Company in Seattle.

In October 1902 Lock Ling wished to make another trip to China. He swore in an affidavit that he was thirty-six years old and had lived in the United States for twenty-one years. He was currently a merchant for Coaster Tea Company. They sold teas, coffees, and spices in Seattle. He wanted to visit his family in China and bring back is son, Locke Loui, who was fifteen and a student. He attached his photo and a photo of his son to his affidavit. Harold N. Smith and Clark Davis were his witnesses. His application was approved.

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

Section 2, S.21039 of the Chinese Exclusion Act was updated and made stricter in 1893. It was no longer enough for a witness to testify that an applicant had not engaged in manual labor for at least one year before his departure from the United States, the testimony had to show specifically the kind of work the applicant did during the entire year. This did not present a problem for Lock Ling.

On his return trip in July 1904, he was admitted at Port Townsend, Washington. The record does not show if his son, Locke Loui, was with him.

In March 1910 Lock Ling (Lock Loon) declared in an affidavit that he was forty-four years old; that he had been in the United States for twenty-eight years; had been a resident of Seattle for sixteen years; that he was a merchant for the last three years with Wing Long & Company; had recently sold his interest in the business; and became of member of Hong Chong Company. He wanted to visit his second wife, Lee See at Sing Ning City, Canton. His first wife had died, and he wanted to bring his son, Lock Kim, age thirteen and a student at Canton University, back to Seattle with him. He attached photos of himself and his son to his affidavit.         

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

P. K. Smith and George O. Sanborn, both citizens of Seattle, swore in affidavits that they knew Lock Ling more than three years. They swore he was a merchant and performed no manual labor except what was necessary to conduct business as a merchant.

When Lock Ling was interviewed, he testified he was married and had three sons, Lock Loy, Lock Yen/Ying, and Lock Kim, and a daughter. His son Lock Ying was admitted in 1908 and living in Seattle; and Lock Loy was declared insane in a hospital in Steilacoom and went back to China. Lock Ling had been back to China four times, once before the Exclusion Act was passed.

The Immigration Inspector made a note on Lock Ling’s interview saying Lock Ling was well known as a salesman for Wing Long Company. His new firm, Hong Chong Company, had forty partners. He would be their treasurer; they sold drugs and general merchandise. The company was not incorporated under Washington State law but according to Chinese custom. They had a four-year lease from Mrs. W. D. Hofius for the four-story brick building, still being built for $950 per month.

Lock Ling’s application was approved, and he left for China in March 1910. He returned in October 1912 and was interrogated when he arrived. He gave his marriage name as Yin Ling and his childhood name as Lock Lung. He was returning from his fifth trip to China with his third wife, Wong Shee, his son Lock Kim and his daughter, Lock Mee.  He had three sons and a daughter with his first wife who died about 1902.  His sons Lock Loy, age 24, had been in the U.S. but went back to China about 1909 and Lock Yen, age 19, was in Seattle. His son and daughter, Lock Gim and Lock Mee, were in the detention house waiting for approval to enter the U.S. Lock Ling’s second wife, Lee Shee had a son, Lock Goey, who was still living in China. When Lee Shee died, her son Lock Loy carried the incense jar to the cemetery. Lock Ling then married Wong Shee according to the Chinese custom. For the ceremony, she did not wear a veil but the tassels from her coronet hung down over her face.  She was brought to his house in a regular red, blue, and green sedan chair.

When asked, Lock Ling described his property in China: a house and rice land worth $3,000 Chinese money, and a building in Hongkong worth about $15,000 Hongkong money. He boasted that he went to China five times and a child was born as a result of each trip. In January 1943, Lock Ling (Lock Loon), age seventy-five, applied for a Laborer’s Return Certificate to visit Vancouver, B.C. He qualified because he owed his daughter, Lock Mee Oye, born and residing in Seattle, Washington, more than $1,000. He presented Immigration authorities his Certificate of Residence #55720 which was issued in Portland, Oregon in 1894. It showed that he was born 11 May 1868 in China and entered the United States with his father about 1882 at San Francisco at the age of fifteen.  He lost his original Certificate of Residence #44577 so he presented his replacement certificate. His application was approved, and his current photo was attached to the document. Lock Ling and his wife went to Vancouver and returned to Seattle four days later.

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

Lock’s Reference Sheet shows three files were brought forward and gives file numbers for his wife, four daughters, and two sons.

[According to Hao-Jan Chang, CEA NARA volunteer and Locke family expert, Yen Ling Lock and former Governor Gary Locke are distantly related. They have common ancestors, starting from the first generation to the third generation. Yen Ling Lock is of the19th generation. Gary Locke is of the 25th generation.] 

Wong Tew Quay – Wife of Merchant in Needles, California

Certificate of Identity, fraudulent claim, Interrogation, marriage custom, naturalized, nonquota visa, paper son, Precis of Investigation, Section 6 Merchant, wedding feast, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Front row: Wong Tew Quay, mother-in-law, Mah Wai
Second row: Wong Wah Chow (1st cousin), Mah Kang, Jee Yook Hing (a distant cousin) “
Mah Wai Family Photo,” ca. 1936, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Wong Tew Quay, Seattle Box 863, file 7031/776.

Wong Tew Quay was admitted at the Port of Seattle, Washington, on 1 March 1938, as the wife of a merchant. She was issued Certificate of Identity 76724. She was accompanied by her ten-year-old son, Mah Kang.

Wong Tew Quay and her son Mah Kang also had San Pedro, California files, 14036/82-B and 83-B. A Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) consisting of the chairman, two inspectors, an official government typist and an interpreter interviewed the family. There were fourteen pages of testimony.  Most of the interview was with her husband, but her file contained more than five pages of interrogation with her, the subject of the file.

Wong Tew Quay’s husband’s interrogation included this information: Gee Chow Wai (marriage name Seung Din) also had an American name, Harry Wah. His Seattle file listed him as Mah Wai. Because he used several names, he will be referred to as Mah Wai in this summary. He testified that he was born in Hong Soon village, Jee Hung section, Hoy San District, China about 1898. He left China when he was 14 and was admitted to Canada under the name Mah Wai as the son of a merchant, Mah Sang. After his arrival he did not live with Mah Sang but lived in Edmonton with the Gee family. He was asked if he freely admitted that he gained admission to Canada on a fraudulent claim. He answered that he did.

In 1924, Mah Wai’s Section 6 Certificate which allowed merchants to enter the country, was endorsed by the American vice-consul at Calgary, Aberta, Canada. Mah Wai was a partner of the Barrack Grocery store in Edmonton for two years before coming to the U.S. to become a partner of the Gim Ngoon Grocery and Restaurant in Needles, California. From there he made four trips out of the U.S., one to Canada, and three to China. On one of his trips, he married Wong Tew Quay. During his interview, he gave details of his village, wedding, their children, and his extended family. The interviewer asked if he had claimed two false sons in a previous interview and if he intended to bring them into the country for compensation.  Mah Wai admitted that he had thought about bringing them in but did not do it, and if he had, he would not have taken money to bring them in.

 [The interviews continued in spite of this alarming admission. It is surprising that he wasn’t immediately rejected or deported.]

Wong Tew Quay’s testimony agreed with her husband’s. She testified that her mother arranged their wedding. It was half old custom and half new. She first met Mah Wai on their wedding day. He gave her two gold rings and a pair of gold bracelets. Their wedding feast was held at a small pavilion in the village with music provided by two flutists. Her contributions to her new household were a large square table, several wooden stools and chairs, two ratan chairs, a wardrobe, dressing table and a washstand. Her testimony agreed with her husband’s including knowing about her husband’s claim of two false sons (paper sons).  

Their son, Jee Doo Keung (Mah Kang) was also interrogated. His testimony agreed with his parents. He attended school in Hong Soon village. On one of his father’s visits to China, his father gave him a fountain pen and took him to a moving picture show at the Hai Ping theatre in Hoy San city.  Jee Doo Keung correctly identified all the family members he was shown in various photographs.

Wong Tew Quay and Mah Wai re-examined and asked to identify the six people in the photo they had given to the American Consul in Canton during their precis interview. Their testimony agreed. Years earlier in a previous testimony Mah Wei told Immigration Service that he lived in Nam Long village but in this current interview he said he was from Hong Soon village. He confessed that as the paper son of Mah Sang, he had to say he was from Nam Long. He admitted that he made up the identifying information about the two paper sons.

The Chairman of Board of Special Inquiry noted that Gee Chow Wai (Mah Wai) was originally admitted to the U.S. from Canada in 1924. Mah Wai showed proof of being a merchant in his four previous trips out of the U.S. The rest of his testimony seemed to be honest and correct; he identified everyone in the photographs correctly; and his son resembled him. A few days earlier Mah Wai told the commissioner that he had gotten involved with a Christian church in Seattle and a woman missionary encouraged him to tell the truth about his fraudulent admission into Canada. Based on this information, Mah Wai, his wife, and son were admitted to the U.S. two weeks after their arrival.

Mah Wai, was naturalized as a United States citizen at San Bernardino, California in December 1947. In 1948 he applied for a nonquota visa for his wife through the office of the American Consul at Vancouver, B. C., Canada. The Seattle immigration office suggested that they contact the Los Angeles, California immigration office since the couple lived in Barstow, California.

There is a 1950 memo in the file that reports to the Seattle Immigration Director that Wong Tew Quay (Mary Wong Gee or Mary Tew Quay Gee) died at Loma Linda, California on 3 November 1949. She was living at Barstow, California at the time of her death.

Mah Wai’s file may have more details about how he managed to be admitted to the U.S. in spite of his admissions of fraud.

Woo Quin Lock – rejected/appealed/admitted

Affidavit, burial ceremony,, Certificate of Identity, dual marriage, family photo, Letters of recommendation, marriage custom, San Francisco file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before March 2020. thn]

Woo Quin Lock was born on 3 March 1920 at Kwong Tung, China. He was the son of a U.S. citizen. He arrived at the Port of Seattle on 2 February 1940 on the Princess Charlotte. He was denied admittance on 12 April 1940. His case was appealed on 10 May, and he was admitted on 10 August, more than eight months after his arrival. He received his Certificate of Identity No. 83265 two days later. The exhibits submitted in his case were an affidavit by his father, Woo Yen Tong, three letters written by the applicant to his father and their translations, a sample of the applicant’s handwriting, four Woo Seattle case files and eight San Francisco files for various Woos.

Woo Quin Lock’s father, Woo Yen Tong, swore in an affidavit that he was a United States citizen and that he had proved his citizenship to the Immigration Service after his arrival at the Port of San Francisco on 14 August 1911 and was issued a Certificate of Identity No. 4752. Three photos were attached to his affidavit.

Woo Quin Kwock, Woo Quin Lock, probably Woo Koon Sang
Son: Woo Quin Lock; Father: Woo Yen Tong

“Woo Yen Tong, affidavit,” 1939, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Woo Quin Lock case file, Seattle Box 805, file 7030/12841.

During his 1940 testimony, Woo Quin Lock testified that his father sent him $1,200 in Hong Kong currency to cover his travel expenses. Chin Thick Gee a member of the Mow Fon Goon store in Hong Kong, purchased his ticket for him. His father owned two houses and a social hall in Wan Jew village. Overnight visitors stayed in the social hall which was the 8th house, 9th row, counting from the north. Gar Theung and Gar Thin, sons of his paternal uncle Get Tong were living in the building while they were guests of the family in 1938. The family owned an old house on the north side and a new house on the south side. The interrogator told Woo Quin Lock that his testimony about some of his uncles and cousins and the location of the houses did not agree with his father’s and brother’s testimony.

The case file contains more than sixty pages of documents and testimony. The following is an excerpt from the summary written by the Immigration Committee Chairman:

The alleged father, Woo Yen Tong, was originally admitted at San Francisco in 1909 as the foreign-born son of a native, Woo Gap.

Woo Yen Tong returned to China in 1919. He married Chen Shee and their son; Woo Quin Lock was born before he returned to the United States. He made several trips to China and four sons were born. Woo Quin Lock’s younger brother, Woo Quin Kwock arrived from China in 1939 and was admitted. He was a witness for Woo Quin Lock.

There were many discrepancies between the testimony of the applicant and his brother about their method and date of travel to Hong Kong, where they stayed on the way, and when they got there. The brothers did not agree on when and where their alleged younger brother attended school.

The interrogation committee decided that the relationship between Woo Quin Lock and his father and brother could not be established. They denied Lock admission to the United States, but he had the right to appeal. The case was reopened in April 1940 to reconsider the citizenship of the alleged father. Woo Yen Tong’s brother was called to testify. Woo Fong Tong (marriage name Sik Kew) presented his Certificate of Identity #10738 which was issued to him in San Francisco in 1913. He testified that he was forty-four, born (ca. 1894) in Wan Jew village, Toy San district, China. He was a laborer living in the Chicago Hotel in Spokane, Washington. He made two trips to China in 1921 and 1929 and returned through the port of San Francisco. He identified the photos that were attached to Fook Yen Tong’s affidavit and a photo of their father, Woo Gap, from his 1921 Certificate of Identify that was included in his San Francisco file. He correctly identified all the Woo photos from the Seattle and San Francisco files.

Woo Fong Tong described the burial ceremony for his father Woo Gap (the transcriber made a note that Gap was pronounced NGIP). Woo Gap died in 1929 and Woo Fong Tong took his remains, his whole body, not just his bones, back to China in a regular wooden casket which was placed in a wooden box lined with tin. After their arrival in Wan Jew village the shipping box was removed, and the casket was placed outside the village for a day for visitation by the family. Then the casket was opened briefly to give everyone one last look at the body. They had a regular burial procession with the whole family accompanying the casket to the burial place at Fong Ngow hill, about 2 lis (less than a mile) north of Wan Jew village. After Woo Gap was buried, the family worshipped at his grave.

Woo Gap was married three times and his father was married twice. There was much testimony in the case file about whether the Woo men were stepsons or half-brothers.

In May 1940, P. J. Hansen, wrote a reference letter for Woo Yen Tong, who he called Raymond Woo. Hansen stated that Woo had worked for him for nine years as cannery foreman and he considered him a conscientious and trustworthy employee. He offered his assistance in getting Woo’s son admitted to the United States.

The legal brief for the appeal on behalf of Woo Quin Lock conceded that Woo Quin Lock was a foreign-born son of Woo Yen Tong but left open the question of his father’s citizenship of the United States.  Woo Yen Tong derived his citizenship through his father, Woo Gap. Woo Gap and his second wife Lee Shee were the parents of Woo Yen Tong. Woo Gap married Lee Shee before the death of his first wife which was legal under Chinese law and custom. Woo Gap’s first wife, Chow Shee, the mother of his four sons, was ill for many years and required constant care. Woo Gap’s second wife moved into the household and cared for Chow Shee and the children. Woo Yen Ton was the son of Woo Gap and Woo’s second wife, Lee Shee. He was born before Woo’s first wife died.

Woo Quin Lock’s attorney, Edward E. Merges, brought forward a May 1918 letter written by Philip B. Jones, Immigration Officer at San Francisco to the Commissioner of Immigration at Angel Island stating the merits Woo Gap’s status as a merchant (one of the exemptions to the Exclusion Act). Woo Gap was born in the United States, a merchant in Santa Cruz, California, and well-known by the community and the immigration station. He resided with his wife and their son Woo Yen Tong. They provided a home and schooling for their son which Immigration authorities thought was sufficient proof of their relationship. They were also impressed that Woo Gap was honest about his dual marriage. Woo Yen Tong’s case was submitted to the Central Immigration Office in Washington, D.C. and it was determined that Woo Gap was a citizen of the United States. His son, Woo Yen Tong, had been admitted as the son of a citizen.  Finally, after an eight-month legal battle, Woo Quin Lock was admitted as the son a citizen on 20 August 1940. His new residence was 725 King Street, Seattle, Washington.