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.

Lee Wing Hing – Wife of Mar Hing, Seattle Merchant

Affidavit, Alien Registration Act of 1940, Chinese interpreter, Group Photo, Photographs, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In March 1908, Mar Hing was about to go to Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, to get married. James Shea and Frank Jobson, both residents of Seattle for more than five years, swore in an affidavit that they knew Mar Hing more than two years. He was a merchant, partner, and cashier for the Ah King Company who performed no manual labor. A photo of Mar Hing was attached to the affidavit and signed by affiants.

"Mar Hing Affidavit," 1908,
“Mar Hing Affidavit,” 1908, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Wing Hing, Box 1007, file 7032/3680.

According to Mar Hing’s 1908 affidavit he had been a resident of the State of Washington for more than twenty years and was currently living in Seattle. He had a $500 interest in the Ah King Company where he bought and sold general merchandise and was a cashier. He was visiting Victoria to marry Lee Wong Hing. They would be returning to Seattle in a few days. He attached a current photo of Lee Wong Hing.

"Lee Wing Hing Affidavit," 1908,
“Lee Wing Hing Affidavit,” 1908, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Wing Hing (Mrs. Mar Hing) file 7032/3680.

Lee Wong Hing was interviewed when the couple arrived in Seattle. She had been living in Victoria for nine years with her parents. Her father, Lee Hong Gue, was a Chinese interpreter and merchant. Lee Wong Hing and Mar Hing were married according to Chinse custom and English law. The certificate was inspected by the inspector and approved but not included in the file. Lee Wong Hing was admitted to the United States as a member of the exempt class, the wife of a domiciled Chinese merchant.

The following year, Lee Wong Hing and her infant son, Gim Wing visited Victoria in July for a few weeks, returned, and were admitted on 21 August 1909.  Daniel Landon, Frank L. Mitten, and her husband, were witnesses for her

"Lee Wing Hing Application," 1909,
“Lee Wing Hing Application,” 1909, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Wing Hing (Mrs. Mar Hing) file 7032/3680.

[About this time Lee Wong Hing’s started appearing on documents as Lee Wing Hing.} In the summer of 1917, Lee Wing Hing, now twenty-nine years old, and the mother of five children, ages one to nine, applied to visit her family in Victoria. The children Harry (Mar Wing), Clarence (Mar Lun), Howard (Mar Shew), James (Mar Gum Shu), and Myra (Mar Saung Gew) were all born in Seattle. Their family physician, Dr. U. C. Bates, identified the family from their photo. Miss Won Mee Menie, age eleven, accompanied them on the trip.

"Lee Wong Hing Family photo,” 1917,
“Lee Wong Hing Family photo,” 1917, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Wing Hing (Mrs. Mar Hing) file 7032/3680.

Lee Wing Hing made a few brief trips to Victoria and Vancouver from 1943 to 1944. By then she had eight children, five were living in Seattle and three were in the U.S. Army. Harry was working in a mine in Oregon, Clarence was working in a shipyard in Seattle, James and Howard were both in the Army, and Howard was stationed in Alaska.  In February 1944 Lee Wong Hing and three friends applied to go to Victoria for a weekend to attend a wedding. She registered under the Alien Registration Act of 1940 and renewed it when it was about to expire. When asked why she was getting her card revalidated, she said she “may want to visit Canada again.” Her file lists another trip to Canada in May 1944.          

Lee Wing Hing’s Reference Sheet lists the file numbers for four sons, one daughter, and her children’s helper in 1917, Won Mee Menie. One son and one daughter were born after the 1917 trip are not included on the list.  [These file numbers would be helpful for anyone researching the family.]

[Additional information not included in the file:
Lee Shee Mar Hing died 18 January 1946, age 56, Seattle, Washington.1
Mar Hing died 10 October 1939 in Seattle, Washington.2

  1. “Washington Deaths and Burials, 1810-1960,” FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/Entry for Lee Shee Mar Hing and Lee Mar Hing, 26 Jan 1946. ↩︎
  2. “Washington Death Certficates, 1907-1960,” FamilySearch, Https://familysearch.org/,Henry Maary Hing, 10 Oct 1939. ↩︎

[Thank you, Hao-Jan Chang telling me about this file. thn]

Low Yow Edwin – born in Alaska

application for citizen's return certificate, Birth Certificate, Form 430, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In March 1939 Edwin Low Yow started the process of obtaining a Citizen’s Return Certificate at Immigration and Naturalization Service in Seattle. He testified that his full name was Edwin Low Yow and the American version was Edwin Low. He was twenty-three years old, a cab driver, and was born on 25 September 1915 at Killisnoo, Alaska. He presented a certified copy of this birth certificate to the Immigration Inspector. His father, Low Yow, was born in China, and his mother, Martha James, was an Alaska (full blood) Eskimo native. Low Yow was a cannery contractor in Alaska and spent most of the summer months there for several years.

Low Yow Edwin Photo
“Low Yow Edwin, Form 430 photo,” 1939, Chinese Exclusion Act Case Files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Low Yow Edwin, Seattle file Box 783, #7030/11920.

Edwin’s mother, Martha James, died about 1916 when Edwin was about one-year old and his sister, Amy Low Yow, was about two years old. Their father, Low Yow, lived in Seattle when he was not working in Alaska. He also had a second wife, Chin Suie Heung  (American name Helen), in Seattle.

Helen did not know that her husband had another wife in Alaska until after Martha James (his other wife) died. Low Yow brought the children to his home in Seattle when they were small and asked his second wife to take care of them. He did not admit that he was the children’s father until he was on his death bed. He died at age sixty-three at Seattle in March 1927.

Low Yow and Helen had four children; two died in infancy. Their surviving daughters were Daisy and Rose. Daisy married G. D. Graves and they lived in Seattle. Rose married Harley Tong. She spent five years in China with Harley then returned to Seattle and he remained there.

“Mrs. Law Yow, Interview” 1939, CEA Case Files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Low Yow Edwin, #7030/11920.

[Notice the inconsistent spelling of Low and Law throughout the document.]

Edwin’s sister, Amy Low Yow, was a witness for her brother. She was married to Willard Jew and they lived in Seattle. Edwin planned to leave for China through San Francisco so he applied for a Return Certificate through the office there and his paperwork was transfer to a San Francisco file. Immigration requested his parents’ death certificates. Amy obtained a certified copy of her father’s Seattle, King County, Washington, death certificate. She did not have enough information to get a copy of the certificate for her mother who died in Alaska. 

Edwin and Amy’s stepmother, Helen, testified that she was born in San Francisco about 1881 and her childhood name Chin Suie Heung before she married and became Mrs. Law Yow.  [She doesn’t mention that Helen was part of her name.] Her testimony about her daughters Daisy and Rose agreed with Edwin and Amy’s.

Edwin presented a copy of his birth certificate as proof of his citizenship. His application was approved.

The Reference Sheet in Edwin’s file contains the file numbers for his stepsister, Rose, and her husband, Harley.

[Low Yow Edwin was the father of CEA volunteer, Rhonda Farrar. Read about how Rhonda found her father’s file when she was indexing the Chinese Exclusion Act files.

Chinese Research Resources – Update

File

Chinese Research Resources – Update

Chinese North American History Network – a directory of Chinese History Museums and Historical Societies across North America

Chinese North American History Network Facebook Page – a site to promote the content of the Chinese museums in North America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Update to Connecting Families to the files…

File

Benny Yi-Bing Chu found information on his grandparents on the blog. He is the grandson of Kenneth S. Wang and Dora Brandenberger. Benny is a former professor at the Beijing Conservatory and founded the China Philharmonic Cellists and the SuperCello festival. 

Dora Brandenberger and Kenneth S. Wang family. Courtesy Benny Yi-Bing Chu

Huie Taong  – Restaurant Owner, The New York Café, Ellensburg, WA

Application for laborer's return certificate, Certificate of Residence, Geary Act of 1892, hookworm, laborer, Marriage name, minor son of merchant, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Huie Taong arrived in the U.S. at the Port of San Francisco in 1872. From there he went to Ellensburg, Washington, and worked as a cook and ran a laundry.  As a laborer, according the 1892 Geary Act which renewed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, he was required to obtain a Certificate of Residence. His certificate described him as a laundryman, thirty-seven years old, five feet three and three-fourth inches, with a scar in the center of his forehead. It was signed and dated May 3, 1894 by Henry Blackman, the Collector of Internal Revenue in Portland, Oregon. Huie Taong’s photograph was attached to the document.

“Certificate of Residence No. 127194, Huie Taong, 1894, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Huie Taong , Seattle Box 44, file 31-223.

In 1905 Huie Taong applied for a Return Certificate so he could go to China and legally return to the U.S. He swore in an affidavit that he had property worth more the $1,000. It consisted of a one-fourth interest in the California Restaurant in Ellensburg, Kittitas County, Washington, valued at about $2,000. His interest was $500. Suey Gin owed him about $700 and Lew Fong owed him $500.

Affidavit for Application for Return Certificate, 1905, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Huie Taong Box 44, file 31-223.

The information in affidavits by Suey Gin and Lew Fong agreed with Huie Taong.
Eight Ellensburg residents signed a statement certifying that the knew Huie Taong and believed his statement was true. They were: O. Henman, Post Office; L. R. Thomas, Sheriff; M E. Flynn, Mayor; J. C. Hubbell, Mgr. Water Co; P. H. W Ross, banker; E. H. Snowden, banker; B. F. Reed, Creamery Proprietor; Austin Mires, City Attorney.

The Chinese Inspector, Mr. A. F. Richardson, visited the California Restaurant several times and was impressed with the people and the place. The restaurant was leased to Wing Yick Tong Company from J. E. Farrell for $50 a month. Because it was doing such a good business, Richardson recommended that Huie Taong’s Return Certificate be approved.

Huie Taong returned from his trip to China to Port Townsend, Washington, and was admitted as a laborer on 31 March 1906. He was forty-six years old, weighed 154 pounds, stout with a large brown mark inside his left forearm, a large scar about two inches long in the center of his forehead, and moles on his jaws and temple. Lew Fong and Suey Gin still owed him over $1,000. He did not have an official note but he kept a small book where he recorded the amounts owed him.

On 24 October 1908, Huie Taong applied to go to China again as a laborer. His “baby name” was Huie Doo Taong and his “marriage name” was Huie Tai Ball. He still had a $500 interest in the California Restaurant and debts due from Suey Gim and Lew Fong. He attached a current photo of himself to the application. The interrogator warned Huie Taong that he must return to the United States with one year and that during his absence his property must not be disposed of, or his debts collected.

Huie Foy was a witness for this trip. He was forty-five years old, born in China, had a Certificate of Registration, and owned the Loy Lee Laundry in Ellensburg. He came to the U.S. in 1882 and bought his laundry from Hop Lee in 1907. He had been back to China twice. He had known Huie Taong for about twenty years and owed him $500.

Sam Wah was also a witness for Huie Taong. He was in the hop business and a partner in the California Restaurant which he described as the best business in town. The prices were so low for hops the last two years that he borrowed $700 from Huie Taong.

Huie Taong’s application was approved on in late November 1908 and a few weeks late he left for China.

Huie Taong returned to Ellensburg in November 1909.  In his interview for admission, he said that while he was in China he and his wife had adopted a seven-year-old boy named Huie Hong Jack whose birthplace in China was not known.

Huie Taong applied for another trip to China in November 1912. He based his application on having a $1,000 deposit at the Washington National Bank of Ellensburg. His Return Certificate was approved.

Huie Taong returned to China in October 1913. His wife had died and he remarried. His current wife and adopted son were in China.

In July 1920 Hui Taong, now using his complete name, Huie Doo Taong, was the chief owner and manager of a large restaurant wanted to change his status from laborer to merchant so he could bring his family to the U.S.  He asked his lawyer, Mr. E. E. Wagen, to help him. Wagen told him that since he managed a large restaurant and did no manual labor, he should be considered a merchant under the Chinese Exclusion Law. The New York Café, did between $40,000 and $50,000 in business per year.

Wagen checked with Hon. Henry M. White, Commissioner of Immigration who told the attorney the rules and documents needed:

“The practice is for the father to have drawn up an affidavit by himself in which his present status is described and information given as to his right of domicile in the country. In this affidavit he should mention something about his family in China, especially the son he purposes having join him in this country. To this affidavit there should be attached a photograph of both the father and the son. The foregoing paper should be supplemented by the joint affidavit of two white persons who the status of the father during the last past year. These men should be prepared to state definitely what the particular daily work of the applicant has been during the year. The practice is to prepare the affidavit in duplicate, to send the duplicate to this office for filing and future use, and the original to the boy in China to be used by him in obtaining transportation to the country.”

“Under the supreme court decision which permits the minor sons of exempts to come to this country, it is particularly stated that they are admitted to assume the exempt status of their resident parent. Under the law, therefore, such persons cannot become laborers while in the United States. It would be contrary to the law for Huie Doo Taong to bring his son to this country to place him in school for a short time, and then to have him work as a laborer, no matter if working for him in his own restaurant.”1

After hearing that he qualified as a merchant, Huie Doo Taong started the process to bring his son, Huie Hong Jack, to the U.S. to continue his education. Attorney Wagen swore in an affidavit that he knew Huie personally, that Huie had done no manual labor in the last year, and he had filed Huie’s income tax return with an income of more than $90,000 for the café for the year 1919. Huie filed an affidavit with all the pertinent information and included photos of himself and his son. The paperwork was approved and Huie sent it to the Consulate in Hongkong.  

Huie Hong Jack arrived at the Port of Seattle on 6 January 1921. He completed the interrogation process but was found to have hookworm. He received hospital treatment and when he was certified disease free, he was admitted to the U.S. as the minor son of a domiciled Chinese merchant on 28 January 1921.

Huie Taong made is final trip to China in December 1923 and there is no indication from his file that he returned to the United States.

Thank you, National Archives CEA volunteer, Lily Eng, for alerting me to this file and making copies for me. Lily’s grandfather worked at the New York Café as a waiter and became a partner in the early 1930s. Her father worked there when he first immigrated to the U.S. until he started his own restaurant in Yakima in 1951.

  1. “White to Wagen, Correspondence 35038/372, 19 July 1920,” CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Huie Taong, file 31-223.

Gim Bing – Walla Walla Gardener

File

The 2016 blog entry for Gim Bing has been updated to include more information from his file.

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.
Gim Bing – Walla Walla Gardener