Category Archives: merchant

Hui Hin, minor son of merchant in Spokane

Application for laborer's return certificate, Application for Pre-investigation Status, Application for return certificate as merchant, Disapproved status, laborer, Lengthy Interrogation, manual labor, merchant, student, , , , , , , , ,

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

Ng Back Ging – Son of Seattle Merchant

Affidavit, Canadiaan CI 4, Canadian CI 9, Canadian documents, Description of house, Description of village, head tax, merchant, minor son of merchant, photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ng Buck Look wanted to bring his son, Ng Back Ging, to the United States. Ng Buck Look (sometimes referred to as Ng Bok Look or Bok Look; marriage name: Yip Gee), was born in China and came to the United States in 1923. In August 1925 he swore in an affidavit that since his arrival, he had been a buyer and partner for the Quong Chong Company on King Street in Seattle, Washington. He and his wife, Wong Shee, had three sons, one of them passed away at the age of two years old. Ng Bok Look completed his affidavit and attached photos of himself and his son, Ng Back Ging, who was classified as the minor son of a merchant.

“Ng Buck Look [sic] Affidavit,” 1925, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Back Ging, Box 837, file 7031/120

In March 1926, Ng Back Ging, age fifteen, arrived in the Port of Seattle. He testified that he was born in Mun Low village, Sun Woy district, China. He had not seen his father in five or six years. His father had lived in China and Canada before coming to Seattle. His grandfather was a farmer in their village and his great grandfather was dead. The interrogator asked about his mother’s and father’s extended families. He described the village where he grew up, the houses, and the neighbors. His family had a red marriage paper with his great grandparents and grandparents’ names listed. He was asked about the tiles or stones in the house and the court, if they had a sewing machine or ancestral tablets, what the floors were made of, where the large and small doors, the windows, and the bedrooms were located, if they had a rice mill or pounder, and any pictures on the walls. Ng Back Ging was asked for details about his neighbors, their families, their houses, and the village. Where was the shrine? Was there a wall around the village, what was it made of? Is there a pond or stream near the village? Any land for growing rice or any stores? Is there a watch tower? Who are the watchmen? Who is the head of the village? He described his school experience. His testimony was over six pages long.

A. Brattstom, a white witness for Ng Buck Look, was interviewed. He was a salesman for the Mutual Paper Corporation and he sold paper, twine, bags and other paper goods to Buck Look at the Quong Chung Co. He knew Buck Look was a partner with Sam Choi. Brattstom was in the store at least once or twice a week.

Ng Dok Foon, the manager of Quong Chung Co. also testified. There were eleven partners in the firm, six of them were active. Their annual total sales were between $24,000 and $25,000. There was no gambling on the premises. The interpreter examined the company’s books and the figures agreed with the testimony. Ng Dok Foon lived in the same village as Buck Look and could verify all the information that had been given in the interviews.

There was a lengthy interview of Ng Buck Look. He described his father, Ng Dok Baw, who was about fifty-seven years old and worked in their home village in the rice fields. Buck Look’s mother had died, and his father remarried. He had five brothers and one sister. One of his brothers, Bok Fook, came to the U.S. and lived in somewhere in Oklahoma. He described his other siblings, their spouses and children, and the other details that his son described.

John A. Thompson, a meat cutter at Fair Market on King Street, was also a witness. He verified Ng Buck Look’s photo, and their testimony agreed. They were in each other’s stores frequently, sometimes once or twice a day. He considered Ng Buck Look “a pretty good merchant.”

Ng Buck Look was recalled, and five more pages of testimony were taken. He was asked about his father, the neighbors and their houses and families, slave families, ancestral halls, fishponds, walls around the city, watch towers, bridges and streams, markets, his son’s school experience, details about Ng Dok Foon [to make sure their testimonies agreed]. Ng Bok Look originally entered North America through Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He paid a $500 head tax when he arrived. He took one trip back to China while he lived in Canada. He planned to stay in Vancouver but decided to make a short visit to the U.S. He found a business opportunity in Seattle, so he decided to stay. Ng Buck Look did not have his Canadian documents with him, but he was allowed to go retrieve them. He presented a receipt for $500 head tax he paid, and a card showing his admittance into Vancouver on 12 March 1923 under Certificate of Identity 9, No. 45482.

Ng Back Ging, CEA , Canadian CI 5, 1914 & CI 9, 1923, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, file 7031/120.

9 March 1926, the Department of Immigration and Colonization in Canada sent the Seattle Immigration office certified documents showing Ng Buck Look’s original entry to Canada. They added a reminder that Ng Buck Look had forfeited his right to be readmitted to Canada by remaining away longer than the statutory period of two years.

Finally, the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) agreed that Ng Back Ging should be admitted. His father’s merchant status was confirmed, the books of his company were examined and cleared, and two statutory witnesses other than Chinese had been examined. His father was a member of one of the oldest Chinese stores in Seattle. There were no discrepancies in all the testimony. The father and son resembled each other and had similar mannerisms. The father was in China at the right time to conceive a son with Ng Back Ging’s date of birth. The decision to admit Ng Back Ging was unanimous. He was admitted on 13 March 1926.

[To be continued next blog entry]

Lock Yet – Laborer to Merchant – Olympia to Holquim

Affidavit, Certificate of Residence, laborer's return certificate, Lost Certificate, merchant, Status Change, White witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 1901 Lock Yet, a Chinese laborer from Olympia, Washington, wanted to visit his family in China, stay for one year, and bring his son back to the U.S. He filled out all the necessary paperwork according to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. He wanted to assure that he would be able return to the U.S. with his son. In an affidavit, Lock Yet stated that he had been a resident of Olympia since 1894. He had applied for and received a Certificate of Residence #43944. He described himself as thirty-eight years old, shallow complexion, brown eyes, and very large thick lips. The Act required that a laborer wanting to leave be owed more than $1,000 that could only be collected when he return. Lock How, Lock Wing, and Lock Sing, all from Olympia, each owed him more than $400, fulfilling the requirement. Lock Yet completed his affidavit by attaching a photo of himself.

“Lock Yet, Affidavit, page 1” 1901, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, Box RS256, file RS32260.
“Lock Yet, Affidavit, page 1” 1901, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, Box RS256, file RS32260.

P. J. O’Brien and W. W. Bellman were Lock Yet’s witnesses. Their testimony agreed with Lock Yet’s. G. C. Israel, a Notary Public, also swore in an affidavit that he had personal known the witnesses for the past five years, they were reputable businessmen living in Olympia, and their statement were trueful.

Lock Yet hoped to leave from Port Townsend. There are no documents in his file showing his paperwork was approved, or that he left for China and returned with his son.

The next documents in the file are from August 1913. Lock Yet left Olympia by train to Hoquiam, Grays Harbor, Washington. He lost his Certificate of Residence somewhere on the tripso he applied for a new one and attached a current photo of himself in American clothes. His attorney, Sidney Moor Heath, sent a letter to the Immigration Office in Seattle explaining the situation. Lock Lad, owner of the Foo Lee Laundry, in Hoquiam, testified that he had known Lock Yet for twenty-five years and had seen his original certificate in the past but neither of them could find it. Parker Ellis, Immigrant Inspector, wrote a letter In October 1913 regarding the lost certificate. Ellis mentioned Lock Yet’s 1901 visit to China.  Ellis DeBruler, Immigration Commissioner at Aberdeen, wrote back saying that Lock Yet was admitted through the Aberteen port in late 1902 and had his certificate with him at the time. Lock Yet’s Certificate of Residence was officially declared lost and a duplicate #144502 was issued to him.

In October 1914, Lock Yet applied for a Return Certificate. He swore in an affidavit that he was fifty years old, a resident of Hoquiam, Washington for the last year, after living in Olympia for twenty years and had no relatives in the United States. His marriage name was Jung Lun. His wife and son, Lock Sang, age 13, were living in his native village. He stated that he made a trip to  China in 1901 and return in 1902. [This trip  is not recorded in his file.] Liw Ting swore in an affidavit that he owed Lock Yet $1,000. Liw Ting was fifty-three years old, the owner of Nanking Noodle House in Hoquiam and knew Lock Yet for fifteen years. Lock Yet’s application was approved and he left for Git Lung, Sunning district, China. When he returned in November 1915, he told Immigration that another son, Lock Ying, was born shortly before he left China to return to the United States.         

Lock Yet, 1914, Application of Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborer Return Certificate, Form 432,
“Application of Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborer Return Certificate, Form 432,” 1914, CEA,
RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, File RS32260.

   In 1918, Lock Yet wanted to change his status from laborer to merchant so he could bring his older son over from China to live with him. He now had a $300 interest in the Kung Yick Company and was working as a salesman. His salary was $25 a month. In October, Lock Yet applied for a Preinvestigation of Status as a Merchant. Immigration Inspector G. H. Mangels interviewed Lock Yet at the store, in his sickbed. He was very ill with influenza. He denied working as a laundryman, oyster fisherman, cannery man, or other manual labor during the last twelve months. He stated that he had been to China twice. In 1901 he left from Seattle and returned in 1902 through Port Townsend. [This 1901-1902 trip information is not documented in the file.] His second trip was in 1913 when he went through Seattle and returned in 1914. His status was a laborer both times.

[According to the Exclusion Act, it was necessary to have two white witnesses who were U.S. citizens, swear in an affidavit that the Chinese person wishing to be classified as a merchant had been a merchant during the last full year and had done no manual labor. The white witnesses were considered more credible than Chinese witnesses.]

Grant Talcott, a fifty-four-year-old jeweler who had lived in Olympia since 1873 was interviewed by Immigration Inspector G. H. Mangels. Talcott said he was acquainted with most of the Chinese in Olympia, and he recognized a photo of Lock Yet. Even though he had known Lock Yet for twenty-five to thirty years, he didn’t know his name. He called him “boy.” Talcott saw Lock Yet in the vicinity of the Kung Yick Company so he assumed he had some business there. The Inspector questioned if Talcott knew much about Lock Yet. Talcott admitted that he signed the affidavit that Tom O’Leary prepared without inspecting it closely.

Joseph Zemberlin was also a witness for Lock Yet. He swore that he was fifty years old, a fish dealer who lived in Olympia for over thirty years. He had known Lock Yet for about one and a half years. He saw him working in the store many times.

George G. Mills, testified that he had lived in Olympia for fifty-two years, since he was an infant. He was a hardware merchant. He was acquainted with all the Chinese in Olympia. He rambled on about how he probably saw Lock Yet in town or at the store.

Inspector Mangels interviewed Lock You, the manager of Kung Yick Company. The Inspector noted that they had Lock You’s family history from when they interviewed him when his son was admitted. There were ten members of his firm; four were active. They sold Chinese general merchandise and had about $1,400 in inventory. Lock You also ran the Lew Café where he employed six people, including two white women. Mangels reviewed the partnership and salary books

Inspector Mangels wrote up a summary of the interviews for the Seattle Immigration Office. He said Mills and Talcott were both men of high standing and that they positively identified Lock Yet’s photo. He did not place as much confidence in Zamberlin’s testimony.

[After reading Mangles reaction to Talcott’s testimony, it was surprising that he had more confidence in Talcott’s testimony than in Zamberlin’s.]

Mangels was impressed with Lock Yet’s knowledge of the store’s goods and prices and that despite Lock Yet being very ill, he testified to obtain his certificate. He thought Lock Yet had become a merchant just so his son could enter the country and then would probably go back to being a laborer.

Lock Yet’s status as a merchant was approved.

There is no information in the file to show when or if Lock Yet left for China and returned to the U.S.

Yee Quin Wah – “Genial and Jolly Good Fellow”

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

“Affidavit for Yee Quin Wah,” 1908, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Yee Quin Wah, Seattle Box 870, file 7030/48.

A note in Yee Quin Wah’s file says, “29 Chinese date Steamer Silvia April 1904 left for China came back to San Franciso Oct 1905.” It is attached to a M194 form, an Application for Return Certificate form, dated 3 July 1930. He was applying for a certificate to return to the U.S. and was using an affidavit from 1908 for proof of his eligibility.

His 1908 affidavit stated that Yee Quin Wah had lived in San Francisco for twenty-seven years. He was a merchant with Quong Yee Chong Company in business at 735 Jackson Street. It states that he was a “genial and jolly good fellow” and an honest, fair-minded man who could be relied upon to keep his word. His affidavit is signed by thirty-two attestors:
H. A. Estabrook, American National Bank;
A. S. Ivanhol [??], Russo-Chinese Bank;
E. J. Forester, Zellerbach Paper Co.;  
C. U. Barlow, Real Estate, 628 Montgomery, SF;
Newton G. Cohn, Real Estate, 147 Sutter St;
C. G. Taylor, Dentist, 973 Market St.,
F. J. Dowd, Clerk, 2713 Howard St.;
A. E. Flagg, Clerk, S.F. Gas & Electric, 2691 Bush St.;
Clarkson Dye, Insurance Broker, 444 California St.;
Paul Lus, Cal. Spring Valley Water Co., 375 Sutter;
M. Swanut [??], 2049 Polk St;
D. A. Cauiblum [??], 577 Market St.;
Geo. W. Duffield, 1931 Larkin St.;
Wm. J. Gardner, 2209 Devisadero St.;
John Wilson, room 623 Merchant Exchange Bldg.;
A. M. Bryan, 348 Clay St;
Jean T. Hondel,[??] 775 Jackson St.;
Octavius Pistolesi, 914 Dupont St.;
Harvey H. Duffield, 1919 Larkin St.;
W. Zeiph [??], 7 Montgomery Ave.;
A. C. Karshi, 111 Montgomery St.;
W. A. Murphy, Swift & Co.;
C. Rickards, 514 California St.;
E. S. T. Messe [??], 602 Mission St.;
Clayland Miller Telephone Co. 192 ½ Valley St.;
Benjamin F. Andes, 602 Missouri St.;
F. H. Grisse [??], 602 Missouri St.;
Elmer R. Jones, 939 Grant Ave. S. F.;
O. A. Cogan, 577 Market St.;
Walter J. MacGrath or MacNutter [??], Wells Fargo & Co. Second & Mission;
Daniel A. McNulty, Post Office, Sta. B;

Yee Quin Wah was interviewed in Seattle in 1930. He testified that his marriage name was Yee Gee, he was 62 years old and a salesman for the Hop Hing Lung Company in Youngstown, Ohio. The only proof he had that he was legally in the U.S. was the 1908 affidavit. Yee Quin Wah had the necessary $1,000 deposited in a local bank, as required, to be eligible for a laborer’s return certificate. He was reminded that the full amount must still be deposited in the bank when he returned and he must return within one year through the Port of Seattle, the same port he departed. If he needed to extend his stay in China, it could not exceed one year, or he would be barred from readmission.

Yee’s San Francisco file #10082/53 was forwarded to the Seattle office. The information agreed with Yee’s current testimony; he was lawfully in the United States. He was issued his return certificate.

Although Yee Quin Wah qualified for merchant status, he decided to apply for a laborer’s return certificate. He thought it would take longer to get a merchant’s return permit than one for a laborer. His wife in China was sick and he wanted to get back to China as quickly as possible.

Yee Quin Wah left the Port of Seattle on 12 July 1930, returned in May 1931 and was admitted.

Jew Men (aka Clement Joe), minor son of merchant– Itta Bena, Mississippi

Advertisement, Affidavit, Letters of recommendation, merchant, minor son of merchant, Return Certificate, San Francisco file, Visa Application, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 1949, Immigration Services was contacting Jew Men and his family to update their files.  They wanted to see if Jew and his family had applied for permanent resident status, or if they had left the country. This is what Immigration found1:

Jew Men and his mother, Quon Shee, arrived at the Port of Seattle in April 1937. They were classified as a minor son and the wife of a domiciled Chinese Merchant, Jew Woo, a member of the firm of Joe Yuen & Co., of Itta Bena, Mississippi. They were admitted and their certificates of identity, which were held by Immigration Services in their absence, were returned to them.

Jew Men, also known as Clement Joe, was 16 years old, when he was interviewed in 1936. He had gone to school for five years in Mississippi and could speak English, Cantonese, and See Yip Hoy Ping dialects. He was born in November 1920 in Sai Hing village, Lee Toom section of the Hoy Ping district in China. He was seven years old when he first came to the U.S. with his mother. They arrived at the Port of San Francisco in August 1926 and were admitted.  He had two younger brothers who stayed in China with his mother’s sister.
Jew Men went back to China with his parents in April 1934. He and his mother did not get Return Certificates before leaving because they thought that were told by the Immigration office that they did not need them. When they wanted to return to the U.S. they applied to the American Consul at Hong Kong for a visa.  The status of merchant for Jew Woo, the father and husband of the applicants, was investigated by the New Orleans Office of Immigration and recognized. Jew Men and his mother received a joint non-immigrant visa.

An October 1936 affidavit with the signatures of sixteen citizens of Itta Bena, Leflore County, Mississippi, swearing that they knew Jew Woo (aka Ray W. Joe), a merchant, for several years and that the photos attached were of his wife and son who resided in Itta Bena from October 1926 to April 1934 until they left for China.

“Jew Woo Affidavit for Quon Shee and Jew Men,” 1936, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Jew Men, Seattle Box 861, file 7031/647.

The affidavit was signed by Mrs. W. S. Bissell, T. M. Allan, Mrs. W. A. Shurtleff, Wayne Shurtleff, J. M. Kelly, W. J. Harlin, Mrs. H Dienoff, W. D. Halsell, Buford Trussell, James C. Davis, J. M. Whittington, Chas F. Costigan, J. Q. Coppage, marshall; R. S. Love, B. B. Hudson, M. D., Mayor; Mc [Macklin] Bailey, Alderman.

In 1934, Mr. R. S. Love, Scoutmaster for Troop 38, Mississippi, wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for Clement Joe (Jew Men).  He called him a “good dependable boy” and thought he would become an Eagle Scout someday.

Jew Men’s file contains copies of Immigration’s 1936 interrogation with his father and mother, Jew Woo and Quon Shee, and a summary of Jew Woo’s file starting with his first admission to the United States in 1917 and his later trips to China. It lists Jew Woo’s San Francisco file as 1585/5-10 and Quon’s SF file as 25223/10-12. She also has a Seattle file #7031/646 which includes a full-page ad for Joe Yuen and Company. Jew Woo’s Americanized name, Ray W. Joe, appears on the ad.

“Joe Yuen Company Advertisement,” ca. 1935, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Quon Shee, Seattle Box 861, file 7031/646.

Jew Men [Clement Joe] was naturalized at New Orleans, Louisiana, on 23 December 1946.

  1. “Jew Men File,” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Jew Men, Seattle Box 861, file 7031/647. ↩︎

Chear Cheo CHIN 陳超 (1871 – 1939) by Kevin Lee

bound feet, Chinese Exclusion Act, File, laborer, merchant, Partnership list, Seattle City Directory, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[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:

  1. CHIN Cheo
  2. CHONG Chew – the only one who held a US$600 partnership share
  3. CHIN Sinn / Sing / Sim AKA Dan Way – the bookkeeper
  4. MAW Wing Lee A.K.A. MAH Lee
  5. Sho Hong
  6. CHEONG Lai (pronounced Cheng Ai) – lived in Bremerton, WA
  7. TAN Wing (pronounced Ton Wing) – lived in Bremerton, WA  
  8. GAR Fun
  9. Mar Dan
  10. Bing Tong (named in the 1915 Seattle City Directory)
  11. Foo Loan (named in the 1922 Seattle City Directory)
  12. 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:

  • 655 – 659 Weller Street (January 1910);                                                                                                
  • 415 – 417 7th Avenue South, Telephone: Elliott 1576W (1911 – 1921);                                      
  • 412 Seventh Ave South (1922 – beyond 1930).                                                                                   

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 #39184/2-12
CHIN 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 #39184/2-12
55-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]

Dorothy S. Luke Lee – born in Seattle

Actor, Birth Certificate, Cerificate of identity number, merchant, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Dorothy S. Luke Lee, 1912 Certified copy of 1910 Birth Certificate,” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Dorothy S. Luke Dee (Mrs. Kaye Hong), Box 770, File #7030/11435.

Dorothy S. Luke Lee, daughter of Luke Lee and Down Cook, was born on 15 March 1910 in Seattle, Washington. She went to China with her family in 1912 and returned a year later.

When Dorothy and her family applied to go to China in 1912, Doctor Cora Smith (Eaton) King was a witness for the family. Dr. King, the family’s physician for the past five years, testified that Dorothy’s father, Luke Lee, was a merchant in Seattle. She knew that at least three of their children were born in the U.S. She was present at the birth of the two youngest, Dorothy and Edwin S. Luke Lee, and she assisted in obtaining a certified copy of the birth certificate of Eugene Luke Lee, who was also born in the U.S.

In 1912, Dorothy’s mother, Down Cook (Mrs. Luke Lee), testified that she was 30 years old, and born in Quong Chaw village, Sunning district, China. She came to the U.S. in July 1907 through Sumas, Washington. At that time her husband was a merchant and member of Sing Fork & Company in New Haven, Connecticut. Their son, Luke Thick Kaye, (Dorothy’s older brother) born in Yen On village, Sunning district, China, came with them.  

Luke Thick Kaye testified in 1912 that he was seven years old. He had been going to school for three years. His teacher at the Main Street school in Seattle was Miss Sadie E. Smith, and his present teacher at Colman School was Miss Rock.

Dorothy S. Luke Lee Certificate of Identity Application 9975 

Dorothy S. Luke Lee, age 3, received Certificate of Identity #9975 as a returning citizen in 1913.

 

“Mrs Kaye Hong, Form 430 photo,” 1938

On 13 September 1938 Mrs. Kaye Hong, (Dorothy S. Luke Lee), age 28, applied to leave the U.S. from the Port of Seattle. She listed her address as 725 Pine Street, San Francisco, California.  She testified that she married Kaye Hong (Hong Won Kee Kaye) on 7 September 1936.

Dorothy, her husband, and some of his family were making a short trip to Canada.  They returned the next day through Blaine, Washington and were admitted.

Additional information not in the file:
Keye Luke attended the University of Washington in Seattle and was an artist/illustrator before becoming an actor for films and television. He got his movie start playing Charlie Chan’s Number One Son, Lee Chan.

Information about Keye Luke’s art career:
“Mary Mallory; Hollywood Heights – Keye Luke,” The Daily Mirror, 20 June 2022;

More about Keye Luke’s acting career:
Vienna’s Classic Hollywood, Keye Luke: Actor, Artist

Chinese American Eyes blog has 19 posts on Keye Luke covering his art and acting careers. 

Keye Luke Biography, Posted 12 Jan 2021 by lindaje2000:

Edwin Luke, Keye Luke’s younger brother, was also an actor. See this short biography of Edwin Luke

FYI: The CEA volunteers are still not back at NARA-Seattle but when we were all working together Rhonda Farrar called my attention to this file. Thank you, Rhonda!

Gim Bing – Walla Walla Gardener

Application for laborer's return certificate, gardener, laborer, laborer's return certificate, merchant, Partner, photo, Return Certificate, salesman, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Gim Bing 1908
“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.

This blog post was updated on 8 April 2024.