Category Archives: photos

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]

Chong Fong & Chong Tom- Walla Walla Merchants

Affidavit, Application for return certificate as merchant, Caucasian witnesses, Form 431, Geary Act of 1892, Mexican money, photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Chong Fong & Chong Tom Affidavit photos,” 1908, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Chong Fong, Seattle Box 234, file 31058.

Chong Fong 張芳 was born on 12 July 1889 in Sun Gee village, Sun Ning, Kwong Tung, China. In June 1908 his father, Chong Tom, officially started the process of bringing his son into the United States. Chong Tom, Alvah Brown, C. B. Cashatt, Quong Sin, and Quong Shik, swore in affidavits that Chong Fong was the minor son of Chong Tom, a merchant at the Wah Sang Yuen Company in Walla Walla, Washington.

Fisher interviewed two Caucasian witnesses to verify the statements made by the Chinese. C. B. Cashatt stated that he had lived in Walla Walla for about thirteen years. He was on the police force and knew Chong Fong’s father, Chong Tom for eight or nine years. He thought he would know if Chong Tom had done any manual labor in the last year.  Alvah Brown, the former Chief of Police, also testified. He had known Chong Tom for about twenty-four years. To the best of his knowledge, Chong Tom had done no manual labor for the last year. He was a merchant. Both men correctly identified photos of Chong Tom.

Chong Tom testified that he arrived in the United States about 1880, moved to Walla Walla around 1881, but was in China at the time when the Chinese were required to register (Geary Act of 1892) so he did not register. Chong Tom was one of ten partners in the Wah Sang Yuen Company. They had each invested $1,000. He had made four trips to China after his initial arrival. He left and returned from various ports—San Francisco, Seattle, Port Townsend, and Sumas. He sent Chong Fong $150 in Mexican money to cover the expense of his trip to the U.S.

Quong Shuk was also interviewed in 1908. He lived in Portland, Oregon when he first arrived but had been in Walla Walla about sixteen years. He was in business with his brother, Chong Tom. Chong Toy was his son.

Chung Quong Sin testified that he was Chong Tom’s brother. He had been in Walla Walla for twenty-eight years and was a partner and merchant for the Wah Sang Yuen Company. Chong Fong was his nephew. When asked if he talked to Chong Tom’s wife, Wong She, when he visited China, he said it wasn’t the custom for a man and “a lady” to have a common conversation but they occasionally talked business.

Chong Fong arrived in Sumas, Washington on 19 October 1908. He was interviewed by immigration agents. His father and other witnesses were reinterviewed. Chong Fong was asked many questions about his father’s family including his extended family, the number of siblings he had, and where they were living. He correctly identified photos of his uncle, Chong Quong Sheck (Shuk), and cousin, Chong Toy who were living in Walla Walla. The examiner, Thomas W. Fisher, noted that Chong Fong’s testimony agreed with his father’s.

After reviewing the papers and application of Chong Fong, Fisher decided that Chong Fong was entitled to admission and Fong was admitted on 29 October 1908. Chong Fong sometimes spelled is name Chung Fong.

“Chong Fong, Application for Pre-Investigation of Status Photo, Form 431” 1913, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Chong Fong, Seattle Box 234, file 31058.

On 2 October 1913, Chong Fong applied for a return certificate with a merchant status for his upcoming trip to China. He had received an interest in his father’s business as a gift in early October 1912. He was a few days short of the required one year of being a merchant but since he was so close, his application was approved. Chong Tom became the manager of a nearby garden on a ranch after giving his interest in the company to his son.

The Wah Sang Yuen Company sold Chinese groceries and clothing and some American tobacco, candles, and soap. They paid $30 rent per month on the building. The inventory was valued at $7,000-$8,000 and sales were about $16,000 in 1912. The city and county taxes were about $50. Chong Fong received $30 per month in wages. The company was originally located on Alder street in the Keylor Building but moved to a Chinese building on 5th and Rose streets.

Chong Fong’s application required two white witnesses to testify on his behalf. Alvah Brown repeated his testimony of 1908. He lived in Walla Walla about thirty years. During that time, he was an agent for the water company, a policeman, and chief of police, before becoming a clerk at a cigar store at 3rd and Main Street. The interviewer asked Brown, “You have never drawn the line at being acquainted among the Chinese?” Brown answered “no,” and named a few Chinese that he knew: Quong Tuck Fung, Kwong Chung Sing, Wah San Yuen, Kwong Wah Sang, Charley Tung (the Interpreter for this file), Lew Tin Yee, and Chong Fong (the applicant) Fong’s other witness was Mr. V. Hunzicker, owner of a jewelry store at 111 West Main Street, between 3rd and 4th street. He came to Walla Walla about 1888.

Chong Tom testified that the partners in his Walla Walla firm, his brother, Chung Quong Shuk and Chung Quong Sin, were from Sun Gee, the village he was from in China. Sun Gee’s population was over 400 and had about 200 houses. The village was located about one half mile from the Hong Har Chung River. Since first coming to the U.S. Chong Tom had visited China four times.

Lew Tin Yee, manager of the Wah Sang Yuen Company was a witness for Chong Fong. He had been the manager for about fifteen years and had been in the U.S. for 35 years. Quong Shuk testified that he had been in the U.S. for 27 years. He was living in Portland, Oregon at the time of the registration. He lived in Walla Walla for the last 16 years.

Chong Fong, age 26, arrived at the Port of Seattle on 28 June 1915 His arrival interrogation gave the following information: marriage name: Jung Lung Fon, wife: Lee She, 26 years old, had bound feet but removed the bindings, from Chuck Suey Hong, Sunning District. They had one son, Yee Sing. Chong Fong still had a $1,000 interest in the Wah Sang Yuen Company.

He was admitted and received certificate of identity No. 2358.

Lee Kim How – wife of Ng Sen Wing deported

Birth Report, Deportation, Deportation Order, File, Form 430, photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lee Kim How was the wife of Ng Sen Wing, the subject of the July 2023 blog entry.

Lee Kim How went to China in 1920 with her parents and three of her siblings when she was eight years old. She returned in 1932 as a married woman.

“Lee Kim How, Form 430,” 1920, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle Box 416, 7030/3463.

Her father, Lee Fong, presented a 1912 Acknowledgment of Report of Birth to Immigration officials and obtained a 1920 transcript of her birth to assure her entry into the United States when they returned. Her name on the report is shown as Mary Lee Foong (Kim Han Foong). [Lee Kim How ‘s Americanized name was Mary Lee Foong. She also appears sometimes as Kim Han Foong. Her name throughout her file is usually Lee Kim How.]

“Lee Foong, Acknowledgment of Report of Birth,” 1912, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.

Her father obtained a transcript of her birth record before they left for China in 1920.

Mary Lee Foong, Transcript #3437 of birth record, Health Department, District of Columbia, 8 July 1920, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.

Their physician, Mary A. Parsons, testified in 1932 that she delivered all six of the Fong Children. Their mother was hospitalized but she would be released for the trip. The older four children went to China with their parents.

Lee Kim How (Mary Lee Foong) arrived at the Port of Seattle on 13 January 1932. She was 19 years old and was accompanied by her husband, Ng Sen Wing. Their destination was Jacksonville, Florida. She had not seen her father since 1921. Two of her brothers and her father were interviewed about her status. They said Lee Kim How’s mother had been institutionalized before they left for China in 1920. When Lee Kim How was asked questions about her father, she said she did not know much about him, that her mother was well and had not been confined to an institution of any kind. She was asked over and over if her mother had been seriously ill and incapable of taking care of her and her siblings. She said her mother always took care of them.

The file contains over 195 pages of documents and interviews. Her father, her siblings, and her husband were interviewed several times. Others in the family testified that the mother was sick and institutionalized and that the two younger daughters were put in an orphanage for a short time. The family moved several times in the D.C. area during this period. Not everyone agreed about the exact street address they were living at certain dates. They gave different dates for Lee Kim How’s wedding and what year she had her ears pierced.

Lee Gum (Gim) Wah, an older brother of Lee Kim How, testified that they were very poor and that their father gave two of the younger daughters away or put them in an orphanage before the rest of the family left for China. He said that Lee Kim How spent some time in the orphanage, but he did not know how long she was there.

In the summary of the case the Immigration Inspector said that some of the father’s testimony did not agree with the statements he originally gave when he came into the U.S. in 1894 but they were more concerned with his statements about his daughter. The father did not recognize his daughter’s photo. She was eight or nine years old when he last saw her and now she was 19. He thought he wasn’t able to recognize her because she had changed considerably when she was sick shortly after returning to China and later fell and lost two front teeth.

Several times in the file, there is a list of records examined but it never includes the Acknowledgment of Report of Birth or the Transcript from the Record of Births for Mary Lee Foong (Kim How Foong).

Photos of Kim How Foong were taken in 1932 when she returned. One view was straight on and the other was a side view with her hair pulled back so you could see her ear.

“Lee Kim How photos, 1932,” CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.

After several interviews with Lee Kim How, Immigration Inspector Doyas, had already accumulated 90 pages of interviews on her. He was dismayed that she could not remember many details about her life in Washington, D.C where she lived until she was eight years old—she could not answer questions about her father’s business, her toys, the names of the nearby streets, her school’s name, etc. Her interrogators tried to get her to speak English but she would only say words that she probably learned in detention.

On 26 March 1932 the Board of Inquiry unanimous rejected Lee Kim How’s application for admittance into the United States saying her case appeared to be entirely fraudulent. They thought she had a remarkable lack of knowledge of her life in the U.S. even though she lived in the U.S. until she was eight and one-half years old. Her father testified that the family moved to a new apartment several months before the family moved to China. Lee Kim How did not know the new address. [This could have been because she had been put in an orphanage for a few months before they left for China. There is no indication in the file that they reviewed the information at the orphanage for the dates she was in residence.]

The Committee believed that:
a.  The girl in the 1920 Form 430 photo had pierced ears. Lee Kim How said her ears were pierced a few years after she arrived in China.
b. The ears in the 1920 photo were a different shape than the ears of the girl seeking admission into the U.S. in 1934.
c. The ears of the applicant were pierced higher on the lobe and closer to the cheek than the ears of the girl on the 1920 Form 430.
d. The photos showed that the girls had “two different natures.” The upper lip was different.
e. They thought she should be able to speak more English than she demonstrated during the interviews.

After Lee Kim How was rejected, her attorney, Fred H. Lysons, requested an appeal. While they were waiting for that decision, Dr. Raymon E. Seth, U.S. Public Health Service physician, recommended that Lee Kim How have a tooth extracted. She and her husband decided to wait until her case was settled.

Ng Sen Wing, Lee’s husband, applied for and was granted a release from detention for several one-hour sessions to visit with his wife. They were always accompanied by an Immigration Station matron.

The family requested a two-week delay for Lee’s deportation so that members of her family could accompany her to China.

On 14 May 1938, there was a stay of deportation so more photographs could be taken of Lee with her ears in the same position as the 1920 Form 430 photo.

“Photos of Lee Kim How,” 1932, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.

On 5 July 1932, after a review of the new photos the appeal was dismissed and Lee Kim How was scheduled for deportation after almost six months of detention at the Port of Seattle. The reason listed was “birth in United States not established.” [It is not clear why her District of Columbia report of birth was not considered. It is hard to understand why U.S. Immigration spent so much time and manpower to keep this woman out of the U.S.]

The reference sheet in her file includes a listing of names and file numbers for her father, husband, a brother, a sister, son, mother- and father-in-law, several brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, nieces and a nephew.

Lee Gum Sing – Interrogations of five-year-old, his father and aunt

Affidavit, Application for Certificate of Identity, Certificate of Identity, discrepancies, funeral custom, Interrogation, photos, reference sheet, released feet, San Francisco file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In January 1938 Lee Yok Tin swore in an affidavit that he was the son of a native of the United States and was last admitted at the port of San Francisco. Photos of Lee Yok Tin and his son were attached to the affidavit. In September 1938 he was applying to have his son, Lee Gum Sing, who was a citizen through him, come to the U.S.

Lee Yok Tin affidavit with photos of Lee Gum Sing and Lee Yok Tin,” 1938

“Lee Yok Tin affidavit with photos of Lee Gum Sing and Lee Yok Tin,” 1938, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Gum Sing file, Seattle Box 769, 7030/11419.

Lee Gum Sing, age 5, the son of Lee Yok Tin, a U.S. citizen, arrived at the Port of Seattle on 6 September 1938 with his aunt, Lee Ah Yee, and his  father. Their destination was San Francisco. Gum Sing had a scar on his forehead over his right eyebrow, a scar on the back of his right ear and another scar on the right side of his neck. [There was no explanation for the scars, and interrogators did not ask about them in the interviews. THN]

His file contains twenty-nine pages of interrogations. Most questions were directed at his father and aunt but there were four pages of interrogation and two pages of re-interrogation for five-year old Lee Gum Sing. The father and aunt, the son and daughter of Lee Lock, also have separate files.

Gum Sing’s aunt, Lee Ah Yee, was twenty years old when she arrived in Seattle. She had a large brown burn scar on the right side of forehead which she said was from a boil and that no one in the family had had smallpox. She was born on 11 March 1919 in Macao City, China and lived in Sheuk Kee city from the time she was two or three years old. Her citizenship status at her arrival was as the daughter of a native citizen. According to the Chinese Exclusion laws it was necessary for her to prove her right to enter the U.S. She told the interrogator that her father, Lee Lock, marriage name Poy Lum, died in July 1936 at the age of 58. Her father’s funeral was held at their home, but she did not attend it. Her mother, Wong Shee, age 52, had released feet and was still living in the family home in China. Japanese warplanes bombed the business section of their village but not the residential section. [In 1938 the Japanese launched several military campaigns in China.]  Ah Yee’s brother brought her to the U.S. to take care of his son, Gum Sing, and told her she could go to school if she was interested.

Lee Gum Sing’s mother, Ow Young Shee, died in 1938. Gum Sing identified his mother’s photo from her San Francisco file #12033/7572 and his father’s photo from his Seattle file 7030/10699. Gum Sing was born in Jung San on 4 October 1933. He had two older brothers and a younger brother. After his mother died his father married again to Leung Shee.

The interrogators asked Gum Sing about his family, home, street, and neighborhood. Gum Sing spoke in a mixture of Heung San and Sam Yip dialect and told them that the family lived in a small house with no upstairs. It had three bedrooms and three parlors, a clock with a pendulum, red tile floors, no courtyard, a toilet near the kitchen, no outside windows, no framed pictures, one outside door in one of the parlors, and a skylight. There was a round wooden table in the kitchen and a clay stove. The house was lit with kerosene lamps at night. He described who slept where. His grandmother had small feet and walked slowly. His father smoked cigarettes. His father’s new wife, Leung Shee, had bobbed hair and wore earrings, rings and bracelets. On their way to Hong Kong to start their trip to the United States they traveled by autobus and boat. The interrogators asked the same questions and more to his father and aunt.

Gum Sing’s father, Lee Yok Tin, marriage name Jock Sang, testified that he was 32 years old and born in Shauck Kee city, Jung San district, China. He was first admitted to the United States at San Francisco in 1922. He lived in Rockport near Walnut Grove. Since then, he had made three trips to China through San Francisco and one through Seattle. His most recent address was at the Hai Goon Grocery Store, 740 Jackson Street, San Francisco. He worked as a truck driver for the store. Lee Yok Tin’s first wife, Ng Shee died in 1923. They had no children together. His second wife, Ow Young Shee died in early 1938. They had four sons and no daughters. Lee Yok Tin married Leung Shee, age 21, a few months after Ow Young Shee died.

Lee Yok Tin explained that his sister, Ah Yee, was not allowed to attend their father’s funeral in 1936 even though it was in the family sitting room, because she was a girl. [Ah Yee would have been about 18 at the time of her father’s death. It is not known If she could have attended if she was older or if she was not allowed to attend simply because she was female; her age may not have mattered. Does anyone know the customs for females attending funerals? TNH]

The interrogator asked Lee Yok Tin why he did not bring his two older sons to the U.S. Yok Tin said he wanted them to attend school in China. The interrogator was also troubled by some of the discrepancies between the family’s description of the neighborhood. The three agreed on most of the details about the house and neighborhood but did not agree on whether the building directly to the right of the family home was an ancestral hall or if a fruit stand and grocery store stood at that place. And they disagreed about how much space there was between the buildings.

When Lee Ah Yee was being reexamined about some of the discrepancies between her statements and her nephew’s, she said Gum Sing’s answers might be different because he was only five years old and probably too young to know the answers.

In the summary of the interrogations by Roy C. Matterson, chairman of the Board of Special Inquiry, he explained the citizenship of Lee Look, the father of Lee Ah Yee and paternal grandfather of Lee Gum Sing. Lee Look’s file stated that when he was leaving San Francisco for China in March 1906, he claimed he was born in San Francisco. An affidavit from his mother and another witness confirmed his birth. After an investigation he was admitted as a citizen. In May 1922 Lee Yok Tin, the son of Lee Look, applied for admittance as the son of a U.S. citizen and was admitted. They both had made several trips to China and were readmitted each time. Although there were several discrepancies in the testimonies for this trip, when all the evidence, testimony and records were reviewed the discrepancies were not enough to detain Lee Ah Yee and Lee Gum Sing. They were admitted to the U.S. on 24 October 1938.  Lee Gum Sing received Certificate of Identity #78259. His application includes his photo at age 3.

“Lee Gum Sing, form M143,” 1938, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Gum Sing file, Seattle Box 769, 7030/11419.

The reference sheet in the file included file number 7030/12466 for Gum Sing’s older brother, Lee Mai Hing.

Suey L. Moy – born in Indiana, resident of Chicago, Illinois

Affidavits, Birth Certificate, Form 430, Group Photo, Interrogation, photos, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

In October 1900, Dr. E. R. Bacon, a practicing physician and surgeon in Lovell, Lane County, Indiana, swore that he knew B. Harley Moy and his wife Agnes T. Moy, and that he delivered their baby son, Suey L. Moy, on 8 September 1898.

B. Harley Moy swore in an affidavit that he was born in China and had lived in the United States for over fifteen years. After arriving in the U.S., he lived with his father in San Francisco, California, for a short time, then moved to Chicago, Illinois, for ten years where he attended school. He travelled around and visited New York City before settling in Lovell, Indiana, where he ran a Chinese bazaar or emporium which he called Harley Moy’s. He married Agnes. F. Anderson, of Chicago, in 1896. In 1900 he was applying to visit China with his young son.

Daniel Lynch, the postmaster of Lowell, and Frank E. Nelson, a cashier at the State Bank of Lowell, both swore in an affidavit that B. Harley Moy had been a resident of Lowell for over two years and was employed in the mercantile business; he was well known by the local residents and that he had a wife and son. A 1900 certified transcript of Suey L. Moy’s 1898 birth certificate is included in his file.

In 1912 Suey L. Moy, age fourteen, wanted to return to the United States. His mother, Agnes T. (Anderson) Moy, started the process to get him readmitted. She swore in an affidavit that she was born in Sweden, immigrated in 1893, and was now a resident of Chicago. During her 1913 interview, Agnes stated that her husband, Harley, owned a restaurant called Ningpo and they lived in an apartment above it. They had four children, Suey who was in Gow Lee, On Fun, China with his paternal grandparents, and a daughter, Helen Moy, born in 1901; and two sons, Boyd Moy (Suey Tang Moy), born in 1905, and Frank Moy (Suey Wing Moy), born in 1907. The three younger children had not been out of the U.S.

“Suey L. Moy photo” 1900, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Suey L. Moy case file, Seattle Box 1392, file 41410/14-30.
“Moy family photo” 1900, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Suey L. Moy case file 41410/14-30.
“Suey L. Moy form 430 photo” 1912, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Suey L. Moy case file, 41410/14-30.

Included in the 1912 application was a photo taken about 1900 of Suey L. Moy at about age one and a group photo of Agnes and her three younger children.

During B. Harley Moy’s interrogation, he testified that the initial “B” in his name stood for Billy, his American nickname. He was forty-two years old and married in 1897. His brother, Moy Dung Goon, was living in Chicago. His family home in China had a big door and a little door. Moy Dung Gee lived across from the little door. [The interrogators often asked the applicant details about the big door and the little door, probably so they could see if the interviewee would give the same answer during their return trip interview.]

Harley and Agnes gave slightly different answers about the date and place of their marriage, however it was close enough for the interrogators to approve Suey L. Moy’s application. But first, as part of the application investigation, the Seattle Immigration Service wrote to Immigration office in Vancouver, B.C. asking if they had any information on the 1900 departure of B. Harley Moy and his son leaving through Portal, North Dakota. Although they could not find the departure information, the Vancouver office thought the evidence of his U.S. citizenship was enough to admit him when he returned in 1913.

In February 1922, Suey L. Moy applied for another trip to China. During his interview he said his father was born in San Francisco. [According to the earlier testimony Suey L. Moy’s grandfather was born in San Francisco and his father was born in China] His parents, B. Harley and Agnes Moy divorced about 1921. Suey L. Moy presented a certified copy of his birth certificate.

“Suey L. Moy 1898 birth certificate, No. 4847” 1922, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Suey L. Moy case file 41410/14-30.

Suey L. Moy returned on 28 May 1923. He reported that he married Lai Shee while in China and they had a son, Moy Jun Wing. He was admitted.

Ah Kong – Spokane, Washington – Oriental Café

Affidavit, application for citizen's return certificate, Maps, photos, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ah Kong 1907 photo
“Ah Kong photo, Eng Gin affidavit” 1907, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ah Kong case file, Seattle Box RS 195, file RS 29169.

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before the closure in March 2020. I will let you know when the archives reopen.  thn]

In 1907 Eng Gin swore in an affidavit that he had been living in Port Townsend, Washington for forty-three years. On the Chinese date of 11 February 1877 (American date in March 1877), he and his wife, Yet Yue, had a son, Ah Kong, in Seattle, Washington. Their son was born at his place of business and residence on Washington Street between Second Avenue and Occidental Avenue. In 1885 he sent Ah Kong to Her Ping village, District of Sun Ning, Canton Province, China, to be educated. By 1907 Ah Kong finished his studies and his father wanted him to join him in Port Townsend. Ah Kong’s mother, Yet Yue died in Port Townsend about 1888. A photo of Ah Kong was included on his father’s affidavit.

In January 1908 Ah Kong, the son of Eng Gin formerly of Seattle, applied for admission to the United States at the Port of Seattle as a returning native-born Chinese.

Ah June was a witness for Ah Kong. Ah June’s name at birth was Ng Tung June and his married name was Ng See Sing. He was forty-four years old and a merchant, the manager of Zee Tai Company in Port Townsend, Washington. He came to the U.S. in 1876. He lived in Port Townsend since his arrival except for nine years in Boise, Idaho (1894 to 1903). He made three trips to China during that time. On his third trip in 1904, he resided in the Village of Gim On in the Sun Ning district. He visited Ah Kong and his family and gave Ah Kong one hundred Mexican dollars from his father.

Ah June knew Eng Gin since 1882 when Eng was living in Port Townsend at the Zee Tai’s store on Water Street, later the location of the Palace Restaurant. Eng Gin was with his wife Shue Shee (Yet Yue) and his son Eng Kong who was about five or six at that time. Eng Gin and his family lived in Port Townsend for about six months before moving to Port Discovery where Eng Gin was employed as a foreman in a sawmill. They stayed there about two years then moved back to a house on Quincy Street in Port Townsend. Ah June thought Eng Gin had another son who was called Ah Wing or Eng Wing but did not know much about him.

Ah Kong was questioned after he arrived at the Port of Seattle on 8 January 1908. He said his other name was Yee Quay and his family name was Eng. He was thirty years old and married. He was born in Seattle on Washington Street between Occidental and Second Avenue. When he was about seven years old, he went to China from San Francisco with a distant cousin, Eng Fong Hock.

Aloysuis Harker was also a witness for Ah Kong. He was in the produce and commission business and had lived in Seattle since 1871, over thirty years. He was well acquainted with many Chinese and knew Chin Ching Hock, Chin Gee Hee, Lu Woo, Eng Gin and many others. He was asked in detail about the addresses for several Chinese businesses. Some of the street names had changed since the Seattle fire of 1889 so he drew a map to show where the businesses were and to explain the new street names. Although Harker had not seen Ah Kong in many years, he thought the photo Ah Kong on his identity card had “the appearance” of the boy he had known twenty years ago.

C. E. Carleton testified for Ah Kong. Carleton was a painter who came to Seattle in 1881. He knew Eng Gin, Wah Chong, Chin Pong and several other Chinese. He got to know Eng Gin when he painted the store Eng managed, Quong Yuen Long Company, on Washington Street. He said the store was on the south side of Washington Street next to the old Standard Theatre which was now the Lyric Theatre. He pointed placed out on the maps that Harker had drawn. He described Eng Gin’s wife as short, thickset, fat, and good looking with big feet. Ah Kong was a young boy when he met him. To the best of Carleton’s memory, the young man in the case file photo resembled the boy he met many years ago.

Ah Kong was admitted at the Port of Seattle.

Ah Kong Form 430 1912 photo
“Ah Kong, Form 430 photo” 1912, CEA files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ah Kong case file, file RS 29169.

In April 1912 Ah Kong applied for pre-investigation of status as an American-born Chinese. He wanted to make a trip to China. Ah Kong was a restaurant keeper at the Oriental Café at 412 Riverside Street in Spokane, Washington. He gave his name as Ah Quong [usually spelled Kong] of the Ng [Eng] family. His married name was Yee Quay. He was thirty-five years old and was born in Seattle, Washington. He married Louie See of Wong Mo Hin village, Sunning district, China. She had bound feet.  Their two sons and one daughter, ages eight to twelve, were born in Sai On village, Sunning district, China.

Ah Kong’s Form 430, Application of Alleged American-Born Chinese for Preinvestigation of Status, dated 29 April 1912, states that officer in charge was prepared to approve the application. There is nothing in the file that shows that Ah Kong left the United States in 1912 or returned at a later date.

Patricia Ann Yuen, ten-year-old visits Canada in 1943

Affidavit, Birth Certificate, Certificate of Identity, Form 430, photos, Sacramento file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Photo Yuen Too Patricia 1943

“Patricia Yuen, Form 430 photo,” 1943. Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Yuen Patricia case file, Seattle Box 828, file 7030/13734.

Patricia Ann Yuen Too 曹淑琴 was ten years old in 1943 when she filed her form 430, Application of Alleged American Citizen of the Chinese Race for Pre-investigation of Status. With the help of her parents, she applied to the Immigration Service at Sacramento and was approved by the San Francisco office.  Her mother, Mrs. Emily L. Yuen, was planning a three-month visit to Vancouver, B.C. Canada for her daughter. They made special arrangements with the Vancouver, B.C. immigration office so Patricia could be admitted at White Rock, British Columbia opposite Blaine, Washington. Patricia was traveling with Emily’s friend, Mrs. Esther Fong, a Canadian citizen who was in San Francisco testifying as a witness in a criminal case. Mrs. Fong was a church worker and a music teacher.

Yuen Too Patricia Robert Aff“Robert Yuen photo, California Affidavit of Identification,” 1943. CEA case files, RG 85, NA-Seattle, Yuen Patricia case file, 828, 7030/13734.

In July 1943, Patricia’s father, Robert Yuen, also known as Robert Chew Too or Robert Chew Yuen, swore in an affidavit that he was born at Red Bluff, Tehama county, California on 8 November 1907 and that he had been a resident of Mt. Shasta, Siskiyou county, CA for the past seven years. His birth name was Robert Bo Do Hong. His father, Chew Yuen, was born in San Francisco and his mother was Too Shee Yuen. Robert Yuen married Emily L. Louis in Red Bluff, CA on 6 June 1929. Emily was born in Walnut Grove, CA. They were the parents of Patricia Ann Yuen Too.  Robert was an herb doctor. He presented his certificate of Identity No. 13395 for inspection.

[A note of the affidavit says, “Witness Sacramento file 103/406 – 7-29-43; SF 12016/12452-OD.”]

A letter from Robert W. Pierce, Inspector in Charge in Sacramento confirmed that San Francisco files 28591/2-8, 9, and 11 were reviewed in the case.

San Francisco file 28591/2-8 for Emily L. Louis (Emily Yuen Too/Louie Guck Lin) identifies Emily as Patricia’s mother. Emily’s certificate of identity, No. 1800, was issued in San Francisco in 1910.The file of Patricia’s brother, Robert Chew Too, Jr. was examined also.

[Patricia – birth certificate]

“Patricia Ann Yuen California birth Certificate,” 1933. CEA case files, RG 85, NA-Seattle, Yuen Patricia case file, 828, 7030/13734.

Patricia testified that she was born on 25 April 1933 in Red Bluff, California. She had three brother and one sister. Her brother Robert, Jr. was 14 and born in Canton, China. Stanford Curtis Yuen Too would be 13 years old in September 1943 and Theodore Stuart Yue Too would be four years old in August 1943. Her sister Linda Jean Yuen Too was about 1-1/2 years old.  Stanford, Theodore, and Linda were born in California. Patricia’s mother was arranging the trip to Vancouver so Patricia she could study Chinese and music. Patricia thought the trip was so she would have a chance to play with girls. She told her interrogator, “I always play with boys at home because there are no girls.”

Mrs. Irene Neuffer, a family friend, served as a witness and claimed to have known the parents and the applicant since Patricia was about four years old. Mrs. Neuffer testified that she was born in Healdsburg, California and currently lived in North Sacramento. She lived across the street from Yuen family when they all lived in Mount Shasta. Mrs. Neuffer said Patricia’s mother thought if Patricia like Vancouver, she could stay a while.

Patricia’s original 1933 certificate of birth and a 1943 certified copy which agrees with the original certificate are included in the file.

Patricia’s documents were approved. She and Mrs. Fung [sometimes referred to as Miss Fung] left San Francisco for White Rock via the train in late August 1943.

Patricia Ann Yuen Too made her return trip to the United States and was admitted through Blaine, Washington on 10 November 1943. Her destination was her home in Mt. Shasta, California. There is no more information in the file. Perhaps 10-year-old Patricia missed her family—even her brothers.

[Since my formal name is Patricia Ann, I could not resist adding Patricia Ann Yuen Too’s file to the blog. THN]

 

Lew King – Canadian and U.S. File

Affidavit, Canadian file, Certificate of Identity, photos, Return Certificate, treasury bond, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fred W. Taylor, Controller of Chinese Immigration for the Port of Vancouver, B. C. swore in an affidavit in the case of Loey King, also known as Lew King 雷權 or Loey Koon, that the document he reviewed was a true copy of Lew King’s application for admission to Canada.

[It is really highly unusual that a copy of Loey King (Lew King)’s 22-page Canadian file is included in his Seattle file.]

Lew King’s Canadian record was made in accordance with the laws of the Dominion of Canada, the Chinese Immigration Act of 1906, as amended by acts assented to July 20, 1908, and July 25, 1917.  [A copy of the Act was included in the file.]

On 23 August 1920, Wong Wamfong [or Wam Fong] swore in an affidavit that he was manager of the Man Sing Lung Company at 92 Pender Street East, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The business, started in March 1919, was registered as a partnership. They dealt with groceries, general merchandise, and drugs. Lew King was a member of the partnership, a merchant, and was interested in coming to Vancouver from Hong Kong to become an active partner.

Louis Gar On swore in an affidavit in August 1920 that he was managing partner of the Man Sang Lung Company in Victoria, B.C. He claimed that Lew King had been a partner for several years of the company in Victoria and was also registered as a partner of Man Sing Lung Company in Vancouver. He believed that Lew King should be entitled to enter Canada exempt from the $500 capitulation tax.

In Lew King’s interrogation, he testified that he was a merchant for Man Sing Lung Co. in Vancouver, B.C. He arrived in Vancouver on 23 November 1920. This was reported in Vancouver file number 1316/1398. His exemption as a merchant was rejected and he was admitted after paying the $500 head tax. In his statement and declaration for registration he said that he was a salesman. He was born at Ing Gar Hong, Sin Ning district, China about 1892.

Lew King Form 432 1921
“Lew King, Form 432,” 1921, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Lew King case file, Seattle Box 889, file 7032/521.

Lew King left Vancouver and was admitted at the Port of Seattle in August 1921 as a Section 6 Merchant.  When Lew King applied for his laborer’s return certificate in 1935, the Seattle immigration office chose to verify Lew King’s original admission in Vancouver in 1921 even though he had made two trips to China since his admittance. The Vancouver office initially recommended that Lew King not be approved. Seattle asked Vancouver to reexamine their file. Roy M Porter, Immigrant Inspector in Seattle, reviewed their report. Porter did not think there was sufficient evidence to prove that Lew King admission to the Canada or the U.S. in 1921 was fraudulent. He reasoned that if the admittance was disapproved, Lew King’s appeal would probably be sustained so he recommended that his laborer’s return certificate be approved.

“Lew King, Form 432,” 1935, NA file 7032/521.

At the time of his interview to leave the U.S. on 5 April 1935, Lew King presented treasury bond No. 57451A for $1,000 as proof of his statutory right for a laborer’s return certificate. He left the bond with the Goon Dip Company at 415 7th Avenue South in Seattle. He was reminded by immigration authorities that the bond must be intact in the U.S. at the time of his return to be entitled to legal readmission.

Lew King (married name Doon Hen) was 42 years old and living at 214 Washington Street in Seattle. He left Seattle on 13 April 1935 on the S.S. President McKinley.

According to section 7 of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1888, as amend, Chinese laborers were required to return within one year. 1 

There is no more information in Lew King’s file and nothing in the file to indicate why he did not return but in September 1937, Marie A. Proctor, district commissioner of the Seattle District Immigration Office, canceled the certificate of identity #56504 issued to Lew King as a laborer.

1. Green Haywood Hackworth. Digest of International Law: Chapters IX – XI., Volume 3, “Chapter XI, Aliens,” (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1942), 792. (books.google.com: accessed 12 May 2020.)

Aileen Cumyow – Canadian Chinese with a Seattle Case file

Affidavit, Canadian file, File, head tax, photos, , , , , ,

Women’s History Month – Aileen’s Chinese Case File

Check out Linda Yip’s Past Presence website. It includes everything you would like to know about the Canadian Chinese Exclusion Act and genealogy in general.
The March 8, 2020 entry for Women’s History Month features Aileen Won Cumyow.
Aileen, a resident of Vancouver, B.C. was applying to visit Seattle, Washington in June 1925.

Affidavit of Aileen Won Cumyow, 4 Jun 1925, sworn before William Green, Notary Public for Vancouver. RG 85, Chinese Exclusion Act Case Files, Seattle District, File 7022/9-I, Aileen Won Cumyow, Chinese Showboat Co. Page 43 of 49 total documents.

Linda Yip obtained Aileen Won Cumyow’s file from the National Archives at Seattle and wrote up Aileen’s story. It is a fascinating read.

Hom Sit – many details about his home and village in China

Affidavit, Certificate of Identity, Form M143, House details, Maps, photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hom Sit, Form M143 photo, 1938

Hom Sit, the 24-year old son of U.S. citizen Hom Tin, arrived in Seattle on the SS Princess Marguerite on 22 August 1938. Although he was married (marriage name Soong Choo) he arrived alone and was going to live with his father in Butte, Montana. His testimony for his admittance was in his native dialect, See Yip. Fung Ming was the official government interpreter. Hom Sit was born on 7 September 1914 in Ung Sing Village, Chuck Hom Section of Hoy Ping District in China. He gave the following information about his father: Hom Tin (marriage name Gwong Ai) was 50 years old, born in San Francisco, California; living in Butte, Montana; and working in the restaurant business. Hom Tin visited them in Ung Sing when Hom Sit was eight years old and stayed for two years. That is the only time they spent together. The Hom ancestral village was Check Suey. Hom Sit’s father’s deceased father was Hom Goon Bow. He was buried at Bok Dook Hill, about a mile from their village. Hom Sit’s mother was Lee Shee, a native of Wing On village. His maternal grandfather, Lee Len Ock, had died but his grandmother, Ow Shee, was 70 years old, living in Wing On. Hom Sit had three brothers, one older and two younger. He was married to Dea Shee from Choo Heung village and they had one son, Hom Ngin, born in 1937.

Ung Sing Village faced east and had eight houses in five rows. Their house was the third house in the first row counting from the north. It was a brick house with five rooms, tile floors, a court paved with stone, had two outside doors with the large door was facing south. Each bedroom had an L-shaped loft along the outside walls and had two outside windows opening above a balcony. They were fitted with iron bars and glass panes with wooden shutters on the inside. The bedrooms and kitchen had skylights fitted with glass. There was a shrine in the parlor; a partitioned room in the parlor was made of wood.

Map of Ung Sing Village
Map of Ung Sing Village

Hom Sit described who lived in the other houses, their extended families, and where they worked. There was a bamboo hedge surrounding the village with a gateway on each end. A river about 200 feet wide was in front of the village and a dirt highway was nearby. The village did not have an ancestral hall or social hall. There weren’t any fruit trees near the village but there was a banyan tree. Hom Sit attended Gung Yee School in the village for twelve years. Won Wing Hop was the principal of the school and there were three other teachers.
Hom Sit said that his father sent $800 for his wedding expenses which included putting in the wooden partition in the parlor and erecting a pavilion for the wedding.

Photos of Hom Tin and Hom Sit, 1938 Affidavit

Jack Chan was the interpreter for interrogation of Hom Tin, the alleged father of Hom Sit. Hom testified that he was a partner at the Idaho Café in Butte, Montana at 799-1/2 Utah Avenue. He was born in San Francisco and had made three trips to China–in 1907, 1913, and 1921. He went through the Port of San Francisco each time. He presented his Certificate of Identity for inspection. He had a brother, Hom Foot, living somewhere in the U.S. They were separated during the San Francisco earthquake and fire and never heard from each other again.

Hom Tin said he did not bring his son over to the U.S. earlier because of the Depression but was bringing him over now to work in his restaurant. He was asked the same long list of questions that his son had been asked. His answers were consistent with his son’s testimony, but the interrogator ended the interview by saying, “Isn’t it a fact that the applicant is not your blood son?” [The interrogators frequently asked this question, even if it was obvious that there was a blood relationship.] Hom Tin stated that Hom Sit was his blood son and the interview ended.

The Board of Special Inquiry reviewed Hom Tin’s San Francisco file and recalled Hom Sit to question him about a few discrepancies in the interviews. They considered that the alleged father had not been in China for nearly fifteen years. They concluded that the alleged father and applicant both ”testified in a straightforward manner” and there was a physical resemblance between them. The board determined that the relationship had been established. Hom Sit was admitted to the U.S. as a United States Citizen, son of an American born Chinese, on 10 October 1938, one month and a half after his arrival.

“Form 143 photo of Hom Sit; Hom Tin Affidavit; map of village” 1938, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Hom Sit case file, Seattle Box 767, file 7030/11371.