In April 1931 Ng Chin Gar 伍傳家 applied for a laborer’s return certificate, form 432. The Seattle Immigration Service wrote to the immigration office in El Paso, TX requesting a copy of his immigration file #5032/84-200. Ng Chin Gar handed over his certificate of identity #40650 which was issued to him as a “Columbus refugee” in El Paso, TX in 1923. It would be given back to him when he returned from his trip. They verified that he had the necessary $1,000 liberty bond. To qualify for reentry into the U.S., he had to return within one year and still be the owner of the $1,000 bond. Since he fulfilled all the requirements for a laborer under the Chinese Exclusion Act, the El Paso office recommended that Ng be issued a return certificate. While waiting for the approval of his documents, he was staying at the Wah Yuen store in his departure city, Seattle. He returned to the Port of Seattle in April 1932 and was admitted.
“Ng Chin Gar, Form 432, Return Certificate photo,” 1934, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives-Seattle, Box 911, File 7032/1072.
Ng Chin Gar applied again for a return certificate in 1934. He was working as a kitchen helper in Austin, Texas. He was married with two sons, ages 12 and 6 years old. In his application, he stated that he originally arrived as a refugee with the U.S. army and was admitted near Columbus, New Mexico, in 1917. He went to Mexico when he was twenty years old (ca.1912).
The Immigrant Inspector Roy M. Porter made a note saying: This certificate bears the following indorsement: “Registered under Public Resolution No. 29 approved November 5, 1928.”
[This was part of a later effort to standardize and reaffirm the validity of Chinese registration certificates issued under earlier exclusion laws.]
In 1935, Ng Chin Gar was unable to return within the one-year deadline because his wife was ill. He applied to Charles L. Hoover, the American Consulate General in Hong Kong for an Overtime Certificate. Ng was asked why his wife’s mother couldn’t take care of her. Hoover approved the certificate because he thought if Ng appealed, it was likely the certificate would be approved. Ng was admitted to the Port of Seattle on 22 May 1936.
The following information is not included in the Ng Chin Gar’s CEA file:
Army camp Columbus, N.M., auto truck supply train about to leave for Mexico / Shulman . New Mexico Columbus, 1916. [?] Photograph. https://www.loc.gov/item/2002719615/.
In April 1931, Wang Chi Che 王季茝 (Chi Che Wang) was applying for a Return Permit so she could attend the annual meeting of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Montreal, Canada. Wang Chi Che’s file contains a Form of Chinese Certificate from 1907 when she originally arrived in the U.S.as a Section 6 student. A photo was attached and the document was signed by M. P. Boyd, American Vice Consul General in Charge, Shanghai, China.
Wang Chi Che (Chi Che Wang), Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives-Seattle, Box 908, File 7032/1000.
Wang Chi Che had the documents she needed to enter Canada temporarily in 1931 but was applying for the documents she would need to reenter the United States after she attended the meeting. She planned to go by way of Detroit, Michigan.
In February, Thomas Thomas, District Director of Immigration in Cincinnati, wrote to the Immigration office in Seattle asking them to furnish a landing record of Miss Chi Che Wang. She arrived as a sixteen-year-old student on the SS Minnesota in August or September 1907. She had not left the country since she arrived.
The Seattle office sent a summary of the 6 March 1931, six-page interrogation of Chi Che Wang.:
She was born in Soo Chow, China on 30 October 1891 and was admitted to the U.S. as a student in August 1907.
Attended Walnut Hills Boarding School in Natick, Massachusetts to improve her English, then Wellesley College.
Employed as head of the Department of Biochemistry at Michall Reese Hospital in Chicago from April 1920 to April 1930.
Did biological research work at the Marine Laboratory at Woods Hole, Massachusetts
Taught biochemistry in the Department of Home Economics at Chicago University.
Since December 1939, employed as Senior Fellow, in charge of the Department of Metabolism of the Pediatric Research Foundation in Cincinnati, receiving a salary of $4,500 a year.
Member of Honorary Scientific Society of Sigma Psi, American Chemical Society, American Society of Biological Chemists, Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine, and Institute of Medicine-Chicago section.
Speaks English fluently and idiomatically.
Information in Chi Che Wang’s interrogation that was not included in the summary: 1. Living at 825 Locust Street in Cincinnati, Ohio. 2. Her sister, Chi Tsau Wang, a Theology student, was living at the International House in Berkeley, California.
After a review of Chi Che Wang’s documents in 1931, a Return Permit was issued to her. A Reentry Permit was issued to her in 1939 with no additional paperwork.
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.
“Jew Men File,” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Jew Men, Seattle Box 861, file 7031/647. ↩︎
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, 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.)
“Chin Wah Pon birth certificate,” 1916, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Chin Wah Pon (Frank) case file, Seattle Box 810,file 7030/13041.
In 1921, Wong Ah Look applied for a return certificate for her son, Chin Wah Pon 陳華泮. She presented his Oregon State birth certificate stating that he was born on 6 July 1916 in Portland. She was leaving for China with Chin Wah Pon and her other children, Chin Wah Ching (James), age 3; and Chin Oy Gim (Marguerite), age 2 months. It was alleged that her husband, Chin Ten/Ton, the father of the children, absconded with a large sum of money and his whereabouts were unknown. Wong Ah Look did not plan on returning to the U.S. so she gave the immigration office her Certificate of Identity to be cancelled.
“Chin Wah Pon Form 430 photo,” 1921, CEA case files, RG 85, NA-Seattle, Chin Wah Pon (Frank) case file, Seattle file 7030/13041.
Their applications were approved and they left for China on 15 October 1921.
James Chin and Marguerite Chin both returned to the U.S. in 1939; were married and living in Seattle, Washington. Chin Wah Pon, also known as Frank Chin, [marriage name Moon Sin] arrived in the United States via Seattle in June 1940. He was a school teacher in China and hoped to continue teaching in the U. S. He married Wong Shee and they had three sons. J. P. Sanderson, Immigration Inspector, asked the following questions about their sons:
“Is it your understanding that it is customary for American Citizen Chinese to claim that all their children are sons, until after five sons are born?” [Answer: “I don’t know about that.”]
“What are the names of your three alleged sons?”
“Do you expect that another son will be born to your wife in the near future?” [Answer: “No.”]
Chin Wah Pon was admitted to the U.S. at Seattle. The Immigration Chairman concluded that his birth certificate was legitimate; he had some of the same identification marks as the person in the 1921 application; and the ears in the 1921 photo appeared to be the same as those of the applicant in the 1940 photo.
“Chin Wah Pon Form M143 photo,” 1940, CEA Act case files, RG 85, NA-Seattle, Chin Wah Pon (Frank) case file, Seattle 7030/13041.
The reference sheet in his file includes the file numbers for his parents, three brothers and a sister.
“Goon Fon affidavit photo,” 1904, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Goon Fon file, Seattle, Box 1001, Case 7032/3500.
Goon Fon was born at Hom Quon village, Sun Woi district, China on 14 January 1883. He came to the United States with his father. Goon Sam, arriving at the Port of San Francisco about 1894 and went to live in Port Townsend, Washington. His father returned to China in 1902 and died there.
On 2 July 1904, A. F. Learned, postmaster; William P. Wyckoff, Customs House official; and H. L. Tibbals, of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington, swore in an affidavit they had been residents of Port Townsend for more than twenty years and were U.S. citizens. They testified that Goon Fon’s father, Goon Sam, was a bona fide merchant for more than twelve years, and a member of the Wing Sing Company, on Washington Street near Quincey Street in Port Townsend. Before leaving for China in 1902, Goon Sam gave his son a $500 share in the business.
The business closed about 1906 and Goon Fon lost his investment.
After his father left Goon Fon went to New York City and worked in the Mon Fong Restaurant on Pell Street, and then a laundry. He came back to Seattle and worked in a cannery in Alaska for Goon Dip, then moved to Spokane, Washington.
In 1924 Goon Fon applied for a return certificate as a laborer. His only proof of his status was the 1904 affidavit. He secured a $1,000 bond for the required proof of the necessary debt owed to a laborer to enable him to return to the U.S. His application was approved. While he was there, he married and had a son. When it was time to come back in 1925, he obtained a Nonquota Immigration Visa from the American Consular Service in Hongkong with his photo. He was admitted at the Port of Seattle, obtained his Certificate of Identity, and went to live in Troy, New York where he was a dishwasher at a restaurant.
In 1937 Goon Fon was living at Noodles Café, 512 Main Street, Spokane, Washington. He wanted to make another trip to China. According to his application for his “Return Certificate for Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborers,” he had a $1,000 loan due from Hui Cheung, who was living at 126 ½ North Wall Street, Spokane. The interrogation was thorough. Goon Fon was asked about his early life in Port Townsend—the Chinese businesses and their exact locations, the business owners, and the whereabouts of other businesses. Hui Cheung was his witness and his answers agreed with Goon Fon’s.
The Seattle Immigration office wrote to San Francisco Immigration to verify when Goon Sam and his son entered San Francisco. They could not find any record of Goon Sam in their indexes of ship manifests or other records. On 9 July 1937 they disapproved Goon Fon’s application for a laborer’s return certificate, but he had the right to appeal. The file does not say how his lawyer won his case, but the appeal was sustained, and he left for China. He returned in July 1938.
“Photos of Charley Wing, 1894 & 1919,” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Charles Wing, alias Chin Poon Leong file, Seattle, Box 1301, Case 38575/8-2
In December 1919 Charley Poon Wing was anxious to visit his sister in China before she died–she was very old, in ill health, and he had not seen her since they were children. Before he left The U.S. he applied to re-enter the country as a returning domiciled merchant. Although he was a laborer many years ago, he now considered himself a merchant. On his return trip Wing arrived in Seattle, Washington on 18 April 1921 on the S.S. Princess Alice but was denied admittance. His case was appealed and he was finally admitted on 6 June 1921. [He spent almost two months at a detention center waiting for the final decision.]
Wing first entered the U. S. at San Francisco in 1875 at the age of ten and remained here continuously until 1919. He was a citizen of South Dakota, owned property worth about $600, paid taxes, and was a registered voter. He voted until he was prohibited by the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1892. He had a certificate of residence No. 135,817, issued at Omaha, Nebraska in May 1894.
Charley Wing applied for readmission as a merchant but under the provision of the Exclusion Act he was deemed a laborer. Because the immigration authorities thought he was trying to enter fraudulently he was subject to deportation. An appeal was made and he was landed as a returning laborer issued nunc pro tunc. [Latin for “now for then,” this refers to changing back to an earlier date of an order, judgment or filing of a document. See Law.com]
Harry L. Gandy, a former member of the U. S. House of Representatives, and a friend of Charley’s, testified that he had known Wing many years and that he should be admitted as a citizen of the state of South Dakota. Gandy wrote a very convincing letter in Wing’s favor explaining that Wing was now an old man and if he was not admitted and forced to go back to China, he will probably die there, alone.
Mr. J. S. Gantz, testified that he had known Charley Wing over 30 years and that Wing had voted prior to 1889 when the Enabling Act [when South Dakota became a state] was passed. Wing was the manager and head cook at the Chicago Restaurant in Rapid City. [Because Wing also did manual labor as head cook, the immigration authorities considered him a laborer.]
According to the records of the Register of Deeds of Pennington County, Wing was the owner of lot 8, block 7, Feigel’s East Addition in Rapid City assessed at $400. Although Wing was the manager of the restaurant, Robert F. Davis, Immigrant inspector, did not think he qualified as a merchant.
Yee Sing Wah and Yee Wah Ong, partners at Chicago Café, testified that Charley Wing was a partner in the Cafe.
Louis W. Napier, the proprietor of a soft drink place in Rapid City, testified that he had known Charley Wing for 25 years. He said he wouldn’t classify him as a merchant but he was a businessman. His definition of a merchant was one who deals in merchandise although Wing was the proprietor of several restaurants over the years. “He always contributed to any cause, churches and civic movements, campaign finds, etc.”
George F. Schneider, president of Pennington County Bank, testified that he had known Charley Wing for over ten years. Schneider thought Wing was a merchant and in charge of supervision of his restaurant who also did manual labor as a cook so in the strict definition of the Act he was not a merchant.
Affidavits testifying to the good character of Charley Wing were filed by W. L. Gardner, a furniture dealer in Seattle; James B. Barber, a contractor and builder; Charles A. Whitson and Guy Wing, both workers at Wing’s Cafeteria; and Edmund Smith, a lawyer in Seattle.
In the five-page statement filed by Smith & Chester, Wing’s attorneys they reiterated all of Charley Wing’s qualities and point out the sad predicament he was in. They said Wing was denied re-admission because he stated he was a “restaurant man” when he left and a “merchant” when returned. They said, “The government does not mean for its functions to serve as a trap, nor to use this kind of a mistake as a snare for the unwary.” They ended their plea,
“Exercising the broad discretion given to the Secretary of Labor, we earnestly request that the decision of the local board be set aside and an order be entered nunc pro tunc, admitting appellant under his true status, if he cannot be admitted as a merchant.”
“Chin Tom Kee, City of Seattle, Birth Return.” 1904, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, ChinTom Kee file, Seattle, Box 1295 Case 38246/4-1.
The City of Seattle birth return for Chin Tom Kee shows that he was born at 219 Washington Street on 13 July [1904]. His mother was 24 on 26 October and his father, Chin Kee, a merchant, born in China was 44 years old. Chin Tom Kee was delivered by Mrs. Jakshitz [a midwife]. [The return is a post card attached to notarized statement in the file.]
In September 1918 Chin Tom Kee was about to make a trip to Hongkong and was filling out the necessary paper work so he could be readmitted upon his return. He received visa no. 988, Certificate for a Person of the Chinese Race Claiming American Citizenship. Although this sounds very official, the last sentence of the document is: “The question of his admissibility to the United States will be determined upon his arrival at an American port.” It is signed by J. S. [illegible] Callen, Vice Consul, Hongkong.
“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.
