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.
Front row: Wong Tew Quay, mother-in-law, Mah Wai Second row: Wong Wah Chow (1st cousin), Mah Kang, Jee Yook Hing (a distant cousin) “ Mah Wai Family Photo,” ca. 1936, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Wong Tew Quay, Seattle Box 863, file 7031/776.
Wong Tew Quay was admitted at the Port of Seattle, Washington, on 1 March 1938, as the wife of a merchant. She was issued Certificate of Identity 76724. She was accompanied by her ten-year-old son, Mah Kang.
Wong Tew Quay and her son Mah Kang also had San Pedro, California files, 14036/82-B and 83-B. A Board of Special Inquiry(BSI) consisting of the chairman, two inspectors, an official government typist and an interpreter interviewed the family. There were fourteen pages of testimony. Most of the interview was with her husband, but her file contained more than five pages of interrogation with her, the subject of the file.
Wong Tew Quay’s husband’s interrogation included this information: Gee Chow Wai (marriage name Seung Din) also had an American name, Harry Wah. His Seattle file listed him as Mah Wai. Because he used several names, he will be referred to as Mah Wai in this summary. He testified that he was born in Hong Soon village, Jee Hung section, Hoy San District, China about 1898. He left China when he was 14 and was admitted to Canada under the name Mah Wai as the son of a merchant, Mah Sang. After his arrival he did not live with Mah Sang but lived in Edmonton with the Gee family. He was asked if he freely admitted that he gained admission to Canada on a fraudulent claim. He answered that he did.
In 1924, Mah Wai’s Section 6 Certificate which allowed merchants to enter the country, was endorsed by the American vice-consul at Calgary, Aberta, Canada. Mah Wai was a partner of the Barrack Grocery store in Edmonton for two years before coming to the U.S. to become a partner of the Gim Ngoon Grocery and Restaurant in Needles, California. From there he made four trips out of the U.S., one to Canada, and three to China. On one of his trips, he married Wong Tew Quay. During his interview, he gave details of his village, wedding, their children, and his extended family. The interviewer asked if he had claimed two false sons in a previous interview and if he intended to bring them into the country for compensation. Mah Wai admitted that he had thought about bringing them in but did not do it, and if he had, he would not have taken money to bring them in.
[The interviews continued in spite of this alarming admission. It is surprising that he wasn’t immediately rejected or deported.]
Wong Tew Quay’s testimony agreed with her husband’s. She testified that her mother arranged their wedding. It was half old custom and half new. She first met Mah Wai on their wedding day. He gave her two gold rings and a pair of gold bracelets. Their wedding feast was held at a small pavilion in the village with music provided by two flutists. Her contributions to her new household were a large square table, several wooden stools and chairs, two ratan chairs, a wardrobe, dressing table and a washstand. Her testimony agreed with her husband’s including knowing about her husband’s claim of two false sons (paper sons).
Their son, Jee Doo Keung (Mah Kang) was also interrogated. His testimony agreed with his parents. He attended school in Hong Soon village. On one of his father’s visits to China, his father gave him a fountain pen and took him to a moving picture show at the Hai Ping theatre in Hoy San city. Jee Doo Keung correctly identified all the family members he was shown in various photographs.
Wong Tew Quay and Mah Wai re-examined and asked to identify the six people in the photo they had given to the American Consul in Canton during their precis interview. Their testimony agreed. Years earlier in a previous testimony Mah Wei told Immigration Service that he lived in Nam Long village but in this current interview he said he was from Hong Soon village. He confessed that as the paper son of Mah Sang, he had to say he was from Nam Long. He admitted that he made up the identifying information about the two paper sons.
The Chairman of Board of Special Inquiry noted that Gee Chow Wai (Mah Wai) was originally admitted to the U.S. from Canada in 1924. Mah Wai showed proof of being a merchant in his four previous trips out of the U.S. The rest of his testimony seemed to be honest and correct; he identified everyone in the photographs correctly; and his son resembled him. A few days earlier Mah Wai told the commissioner that he had gotten involved with a Christian church in Seattle and a woman missionary encouraged him to tell the truth about his fraudulent admission into Canada. Based on this information, Mah Wai, his wife, and son were admitted to the U.S. two weeks after their arrival.
Mah Wai, was naturalized as a United States citizen at San Bernardino, California in December 1947. In 1948 he applied for a nonquota visa for his wife through the office of the American Consul at Vancouver, B. C., Canada. The Seattle immigration office suggested that they contact the Los Angeles, California immigration office since the couple lived in Barstow, California.
There is a 1950 memo in the file that reports to the Seattle Immigration Director that Wong Tew Quay (Mary Wong Gee or Mary Tew Quay Gee) died at Loma Linda, California on 3 November 1949. She was living at Barstow, California at the time of her death.
Mah Wai’s file may have more details about how he managed to be admitted to the U.S. in spite of his admissions of fraud.
[A big thank you to Kevin Lee for sharing his family stories on the blog.]
Chear Cheo CHIN 陳超 (1871 – 1939) by Kevin Lee Better known in English as Cheo CHIN or CHIN Cheo, he spent 58 years of his 67½ year lifetime as a resident of the United States. He was born CHAN Don Fun (pronounced Gon Foon in the local Toisan dialect) on 22 August 1871 in the village of Mi Kong (Mai Gong), Hoi Ping (Kaiping) county, Kwangtung (Guangdong) Province, Imperial China.
He was the 2nd out of 6 consecutive generations – soon to be 7th– of my family to have lived, for a lengthy period of time, in Seattle, Washington State.
CHIN Cheo became “a well-known merchant in Seattle” (as described by Henry A. Monroe, Notary Public, lawyer and later U.S. Commissioner of Immigration), having established the Wing Sang store in Washington over a century ago.
Much of his life was pieced together from his sizeable 60 page National Archives file (almost 1 page for every year in the United States), case # 39184/2-12 (previously 682, 15844 and 30206) located at Sand Point Way, Seattle, along with his 2 Seattle-based sons’ case file numbers 28104 and 7031/325.
He was originally accompanied by his rice-farmer father, CHAN Gin Heung AKA CHIN Yen Hing (1845/46 – 1918/19), on a 21-day voyage across the Pacific Ocean to San Francisco, California in 1881 (“KS 7” or during Emperor Kuang-Su’s 7th year of reign), aged 9½ years old.
The hazardous journey across the wide ocean was made possible by Britain defeating Imperial China in 2 Opium Wars, which opened up 5 ports (including Canton and Hong Kong – both nearby to Mi Kong village) for Western trade, and the 1868 Burlingame Treaty (which legitimised Chinese citizens’ ability to emigrate to the USA). China was a poor country for various reasons (foreign intrusion and pilfering of riches, corruption of the Manchu government, floods and droughts) and therefore, men needed a way to support their families.
As discovered by reading the case file of CHIN Cheo, the borders into the USA prior to 1882 were porous. CHIN Cheo and his father, CHAN Gin Heung AKA CHIN Yen Hing, arrived into the port of San Francisco without any identity documents, stating to an Immigration Inspector decades later, that “we carried no papers at that time.”
Chinese immigrants – almost entirely males – came in droves; 300,000 arrived into the United States from the time of discovery of gold in California in 1849 until the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act (CEA) in 1882. When the CEA was passed through Congress and signed-off (after an initial veto) by the U.S. President Chester Arthur, it stemmed the flow of Chinese immigrants when it became a trickle for over 60 years, until it was repealed in 1943.
CHIN Cheo was determined to establish his life in Seattle, as a man of respect in the Chinese community. On the other hand, his father decided that he needed to head back to Mi Kong, China, to see his wife, Tom shee (my great great grandmother), after spending 13 years in the United States working as a laundryman.
CHIN Cheo studied English in Seattle, until about 12 years old. He then began working as a laborer (his tanned complexion from photos in his NARA case file suggests some time was spent outdoors), as a cook in Fort Madison, WA, and finally as a merchant/businessman for over 2 decades in the Chinatown International District. He accumulated significant savings, which he trustingly lent to other Chinese citizens to establish businesses in Seattle. Presumably, he was able to recover all the funds that he had lent out, as he lived a comfortable life in Seattle. Some of his funds, unfortunately, were gambled away by playing mahjong onboard steamships to China in 1899, 1903, 1912, 1919 and on ships returning to the USA in 1900, 1904, 1913 and 1921. Each of his 4 trips back to China, as an adult, produced a child or the adoption of a child.
CHIN Cheo was the organiser, founder, and managing partner of the Wing Sang Company (Seattle) also known as Wing Sang & Co., Seattle, in November 1908 (Chinese calendar) or December 1908 (Western calendar).
The 12 partners each put in capital of US$500, however, only 3 – 4 were active at any one time and drew a salary of US$50 per month. The first 7 partners listed below were specifically named by CHIN Cheo during Immigration interviews, with the last 5 assumed to be:
CHIN Cheo
CHONG Chew – the only one who held a US$600 partnership share
CHIN Sinn / Sing / Sim AKA Dan Way – the bookkeeper
MAW Wing Lee A.K.A. MAH Lee
Sho Hong
CHEONG Lai (pronounced Cheng Ai) – lived in Bremerton, WA
TAN Wing (pronounced Ton Wing) – lived in Bremerton, WA
GAR Fun
Mar Dan
Bing Tong (named in the 1915 Seattle City Directory)
Foo Loan (named in the 1922 Seattle City Directory)
Kwan You (named in a 1930 Seattle Times advertisement)
The Wing Sang Company / Wing Sang & Co., Seattle sold general Chinese merchandise including rice, tea, wine, oil, miscellaneous goods, herbs, drugs/medicines. It held inventory valued at US$2,000 in October 1911, and US$3,000 in December 1912 and April 1926.
The Wing Sang Company / Wing Sang & Co., Seattle was variously located at:
CHIN Cheo was also simultaneously a silent partner in Sang Loon Company / Sang Yuen Co. , having purchased a US$500 interest in 1923. It was newly-opened at 660 King Street, Seattle that year. He then became an active partner on 2 June 1930, ordering groceries, doing-up packages, marking-up prices, and arranging delivery to customers.
He resided at the back of the shop of Wing Sang (Seattle) for 2 decades, and then moved to an upper level apartment above the Sang Loon/Yuen Company in 1930.
CHIN Cheo was determined in life to leave a legacy inside both the village of Mi Kong, China (where his house and treasure chest are currently owned by his adopted son’s son) and in Seattle, USA (where his personal effects such as hat, ties, and spectacles are still being kept by a great granddaughter).
CHIN Cheo left behind 3 blood-related children, via Love SEETO or SEE TOW shee, who have all featured on this Seattle blog website (in addition to a 4th child – an adopted son from the markets near Mi Kong):
CHIN Cheo brought children into this world (the 1st born was in 1900 at age 29) and grandchildren (the 1st born was in 1926 when he was 55) – yet he never really knew them.
His 1st wife, Love SEETO was born in 1875 in Ngo Lew How village, in the Chikan (Chek-ham) region, Hoiping county, was foot-bound, and became heart-broken in 1918 upon learning that their no. 1 son, CHIN Wing Quong died in Seattle at the young age of 18 from self-medicating.
His 2nd wife was FONG / FUNG shee, whom he married at age 49 in 1920 (the 10th year of the Republic of China or “Rep. 10”) during his final trip back to Mi Kong village. He had no children with her, during the brief time he spent with her, before he sailed out of Hong Kong on board the S.S. Empress of Japan on 20 September 1921.
In a quirk of history, his granddaughter Siu Lung Yu’s 余小濃 future husband had a grandfather, LEE Sing Lip (1906 – 1993) and great grandfather, CHENG Fai Sin, both living in Seattle & Vancouver during the early 1900’s, and whom CHIN Cheo most likely knew.
He finally died on Monday 6 March 1939 at 11PM due to cancer of the sigmoid, a part of the bowel, after suffering obstructions for 17 days, and was buried in the Old Chinese Section of Mount Pleasant Cemetery, 700 West Raye Street, Seattle. Hundreds turned out for his funeral, where he was addressed as 陳公 (pronounced as “Chun gūng“) meaning Elder CHAN or Mr CHAN, Senior – a mark of respect for one of Seattle’s early and most reputable Chinese merchants.
Application of lawfully domiciled Chinese merchant, teacher, or student for pre investigation of status, made by 41-year-old CHIN Cheo 陳超, manager of Wing Sang Co., 17 December 1912, National Archives-Seattle file #39184/2-12CHIN Cheo 陳超 AKA CHIN Don Foon’s family relationships (including the author’s grandmother CHIN Hai Soon AKA “Ah Shoon, age 11, Female”) summarised onto 1 page by 2 U.S. Immigration Inspectors, after arriving back to Seattle on 10 October 1921 from his final trip ever in China, National Archives-Seattle file #39184/2-1255-year-old merchant CHIN Cheo 陳超 standing behind the counter of Wing Sang Company / Wing Sang & Co., located at 412 Seventh Ave South Seattle, on Saturday 12 December 1926. 2 nd from left, sitting on the bar stool, is his recently-sponsored 13-year-old son, Donald Wing Ung CHIN 陳榮 棟 [photo courtesy of Julie A. Chan]Descendants of CHIN Cheo 陳超 in December 1981 / January 1982 at his 77-year-old daughter CHIN Hai Soon / CHAN Mei Chen’s 陳美珍 matrimonial house in Num Bin Toon / Chuen (the Yee village) [photo courtesy of Kevin Lee]Descendants of CHIN Cheo 陳超 in November 2013 at his Mi Kong (Mai Gong) village house [photo courtesy of Julie A. Chan]Final resting place of CHIN Cheo 陳超 with his and Love SEETO / SEE TOW shee’s portraits, in the Old Chinese section of Mount Pleasant Cemetery, 700 West Raye Street, Seattle [photo courtesy of Kevin Lee]
Ng Lee Fong swore in an New York State affidavit, dated 21 August 1921, that he was an American born citizen. He had a valid U.S. passport #1053-C. The purpose of his affidavit was to bring his wife, Wong Shee, age forty-three, and his son, Ng Sen Wing, age thirteen, to the United States. His witness was one of his other sons, Ng Jung Fie, of Jacksonville, Florida. Photos of all four of them were attached to the affidavit.
Lower: Ng Lee Fong, Wong Shee, Ng Sen Wing Upper: Ng Jung Fie, witness “Ng Lee Fong Affidavit,” 1921, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Sen Wing, Seattle Box 416, 7030/351.
When Ng Lee Fong, his wife, Wong Shee, and their son, Ng Sen Wong, arrived at the Port of Seattle in October 1922, Wong Shee was interviewed. She gave her maiden name as Gin Woon. She was born in Hong Hen Village, Sunning District, China. She had four sons, no daughters. Her two elder sons and their families were living in Jacksonville, Florida. The third adult son came on the ship with them and was a witness for the affidavit. Wong Shee described her family, her husband’s parents and his extended family. When asked, she said they worshiped their ancestor’s graves at Bo Hill, near Bo Chung; and patronized Ng Sum Market and the Sai Ning Market. She identified photos of her daughters-in-law and her grandchildren and gave their dates of birth.
Ng Sen Wing 伍新榮 was interviewed the same day. He testified that he came with his parents, his brother Ng Jung Fai, his wife Lee Shee and his brother Ng Jung Go’s wife, Lee Shee, and their son Wah Poy. His mother had bound feet. He described his village, which faced south, as having six houses and a small schoolhouse. It was the second house from the left-hand side of the village and had five rooms.
Ng Lee Fong, the father, testified that his marriage name was Ng Yee Hung. He correctly identified the photographs of everyone in their traveling group. Ng Lee Fong was originally admitted at Malone, New York, on 31 January 1910, as a returning native born Chinese. [This is why his 1921 affidavit was from New York State; Immigration authorities were verifying his claim of U.S. citizenship from his first re-entry into the U.S. from a visit to China.]
Everyone was examined separately and asked the same questions and asked to identify the same photos. Immigration Service wanted to be sure that everyone’s answers agreed. Inspector Mangold and the committee unanimously approved the admittance of everyone in the family. They had made an exceptional impression on the Board of Inquiry—not only did the son resemble the father but they all arrived as first-class passengers. Mangold declared it “a very excellent case.” Ng Sen Wing was admitted on 26 October 1922, as a student, and given Certificate of Identity 42852.
“Ng Sen Wing, Certificate of Identity Application photo, Form M135,” 1922, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Sen Wing, 7030/351.
In May 1930 Ng Sen Wing applied to visit China. He was traveling with his parents, a nephew, a brother and his wife and their five children. His father, Ng Lee Fong, testified that he was born in San Jose, California. He and his sons and their families worked on a forty-acre vegetable farm about six miles from Jacksonville valued at about $10,000 [worth about $182,000 in 2023]. He updated all the family information on his sons by giving his grandchildren’s names, ages, and place of birth.
Witness statements for Ng Sen Wing and his three brothers are included in Ng Sen Wing’s file. The questions and answers were mostly the same as in previous examinations. His trip was approved. He left for China and he returned in January 1932.
Six months later he was seeking approval for another visit to China. His application was brief. When asked if he brought his wife, Lee Kim How, with him when he returned in January 1932, he said he had. Now she was being deported because she was not the same person mentioned in her return citizen’s certificate. He was making the trip back to China with her. The Reference Sheet included in Ng Sen Wing’s file lists Lee Kim How’s file as 7030/3463. [Her file should give more information. I will find her file and let you know what was going on. THN]
When Ng Sen Wing returned in May 1934, he was married Lee Kim How and they had a son, Wah Kuey, age 2. His wife and son stayed in China.
In October 1934, Ng Sen Wing of Jacksonville, Florida applied for a Citizen Return Certificate to visit China. He was interviewed about his status as a United States citizen. He was considered a citizen because he was the son of a native, Ng Lee Fong. He presented his Certificate of Identity #42852, which was issued to him when he first arrived in 1922.
His application included his physical description: age 25, height 5’ 4”, 130 pounds, yellow complexion, black hair, and brown eyes. He had a brown mole below the outer corner of his right eye, and marks on the lobe of his right ear and right and left side of his neck. He testified that he lived on a Chinese farm on Lake city road, route 5, Jacksonville, Florida. He was married on 3 February 1931 in Hong Kong, to Lee Kim How, age 21, born in Washington, D.C. His marriage name was Ng See Quong. His wife was living in Lung Chill Loy, China, with their child, Ng Wah Kui [also spelled Kuey].
His request was approved, and he left on 3 December 1934. His Certificate of Identity #42852 was retained at the district office. [The certificate would be returned to him when he re-entered the U.S. This was to assure that if he decided to stay in China, he could not sell or give his certificate to someone else.] His application included sworn statements of his two brothers, Ng Jung Fie, and Ng Jung Go, who were citizens of the United States.
When Ng Sen Wing returned on 23 July 1935 he was admitted at the Port of Seattle. The reference sheet in Ng Sen Wing’s file lists the names and file numbers for his wife (with a note saying she had been deported), his parents, three brothers, five nieces and nephews, and three sisters-in-laws. [This is a gold mine of information for someone researching this family.]
Ng Ah Yun was born in Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington on 23 August 1889. He was the son of (Ng) Yee Kong and Wong Shee. Yee Kong had come to the United States from China about 1877 and married Wong Shee in San Francisco in 1882. Shortly after they married, they moved to Port Townsend, Washington and resided at the corner of Madison and Water Streets. Their first son, Ah Don Ng, was born there in 1885 or 1886.
Yee Kong operated the Yee Wah Laundry. Its original location was across the corner from the sailors’ boarding house. In December 1888, Yee Kong’s cousin, Charley Quong, who was born in California, joined them in Port Townsend. Charley’s father and Yee Kong’s father were brothers. About 1890 the laundry burned down, and the building was replaced. Eventually that building also burned and the family moved over to the King Tai Company building. About 1892, discouraged after twice losing their business, Yee Kong, his wife, and their two sons moved back to China.
In June 1907 the two brothers, (Ng) Ah Don and (Ng) Ah Yun, returned to Port Townsend on the Ex. S. S. Shawmut and applied to be admitted to the United States as U.S. citizens. Over a ten- day period they were interrogated and eventually admitted.
Ah Yun and Ah Don affidavit photos, 1907, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ng Ah Yun case file, Seattle Box 621, file 7030/6363.
The file does not indicate where they stayed those ten days. The Port Townsend U.S. Customs House may have made some arrangements for them. Charley Quong, another Chinese man, and two Caucasian witnesses swore in affidavits about their knowledge of the brothers. They were shown photographs and asked to identify each one. Frank A. Bartlett said he had been a resident of Port Townsend for more than forty- two years. He was a member of C. C. Bartlett & Company, his father ’s general merchandise store, and sold laundry supplies to Yee Kong. C. C. Bartlett also rented a lot and a building to Yee Kong. After the building burned down, Yee Kong rented the land from Bartlett and built a two-story frame building for his laundry business. The Bartletts had a good working relationship with Yee Kong, and they both remembered seeing his young sons playing around the laundry.
Joseph Steiner also swore in an affidavit that he was acquainted with Yee Kong. Steiner owned a cigar store and had been a resident of Port Townsend since February 1888. Steiner patronized the Yee Wah Laundry, and Yee Kong brought his sons with him to the cigar store when he came to collect Steiner’s laundry fees and visit with him.
In Eng Yee Tung’s affidavit he testified that he was forty-four years old and was born in Pen On, Har Pang County, Sunning district, Province of Canton, China. He was the manager of the Yee Sing Wook Kee Company in Port Townsend. Around 1885 there were about one hundred Chinese in Port Townsend. Eng Yee Tung testified that he and about thirty or forty other Chinese attended a “shaving feast” to celebrate the birth of each of Yee Kong’s sons. This was a Chinese ritual in which a barber would shave off all but a small tuft of hair on the front of a male baby’s head about a month after the birth, then family and friends would gather to celebrate.[1]
Ah Don, age 21, was interviewed on 13 June 1907. Even though he was only five or six years old when he left Port Townsend for China, he was asked many of the same questions asked of the other adults. He testified that his uncle, Charley Quong, whose Chinese name was Bing Quong, lived next door to his father ’s house in China and that Charley’s father was Jet Hock, the brother of Hen Hock. In the interview Ah Don described his house—it had had two sleeping rooms, two kitchens and a worship room. He stated that his mother had a brother named Wong Sai Chuck, a farmer in China. The interviewer then gave Ah Don a genealogy lesson. He explained that Charley and Ah Don’s fathers were first cousins; therefore, Charley could not be his uncle. When asked if he had any first cousins, Ah Don responded: “Under the Chinese custom I call Bing Quong my uncle, but according to the American custom he is my cousin, but not my first cousin.” (He had learned his genealogy lesson and how to deal with interviewers.) He had no other cousins. His father had given him about $1,000 to come to the United States.
Ah Yun, age 18, was interviewed the next day; ten days after the brothers had arrived in Port Townsend. He was only three or four years old when he left the U.S. for China. He told the interviewer that the family name was Ng, although it was not always used. When Ah Yun called Charley Kong (Quong) his uncle, Mr. Monroe, the interviewer, gave him the same genealogy lecture he had given his brother. Ah Yun gave the same answers to the interview questions as his brother had. As one would expect, they both correctly identified the photographs of each other and of Charley Quong.
On 14 June 1907, the Acting Chinese Inspector in Charge interviewed Charley Quong about Ah Yun and Ah Don. An interpreter was present. Quite a bit of genealogical information was obtained in that interview. Charley Quong/ Bing Quong was by this time thirty-five years old and was working in a saloon in Port Townsend that was owned by Henry Rothschild. Quong was born in San Francisco, the son of Hen Hock and Chin Shee, the former being the son of Mon Fee. Hen Hock was born in China and his mother in San Francisco. His father died in Fresco, California about 1900, but his mother was still living there. His four sisters and three brothers were all born in the United States and were living in Fresno.
Charley Quong had married in San Francisco. Quong had made two trips to China, once in 1895 and again in 1901. He had registered each time before he left the country. The interviewer asked him why he had registered, since he was born in the United States. He replied, “Because every Chinaman was registering, and I thought I would do the same.” [It was odd that the interviewer asked Quong why he had registered, because in 1892 the Geary Act was passed, which expanded the 1882 exclusion act. It now required all Chinese to register and obtain a certificate of identity as proof of their right to be in the United States and to safely return when they left the country.]
The interviewer asked Quong many questions about his family in China. Charley Quong and his cousin Yee Kong had lived in the village of Song Cheong, sometimes called Song Clen, Song Lung or Song Leung. There were only two houses in the village and they each owned one of them. Quong lived there with his wife, his stepmother (his father ’s first wife), and his two sons.
Caucasians were considered more credible witnesses than Chinese, so it was important for returning Chinese to have white witnesses who could swear that they were respectable citizens. Even though information on Caucasians in the files is incidental and rarely indexed, there are sometimes tidbits of information about people who had working relationships with Chinese. Sometimes a witness might tell where they were living in the 1890s when no census records were available. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to find this information.[2]
Three months after Frank A. Bartlett and Joseph Steiner gave sworn statements about their knowledge of Ah Don and Ah Yun, the affiants gave witness testimony. Mr. Monroe asked Steiner how long he had lived in Port Townsend and Steiner replied that it had been a little over twenty years. Monroe came back with, “How much over twenty years?” Steiner replied that it had been twenty years in February. [Monroe was getting testy. He may have been feeling that he was wasting his time trying to disprove that the brothers were U. S. citizens.]
Steiner was asked to give the names of any Chinese that he remembered. He named six Chinese. He said he had never been to Yee Kong’s laundry because Yee Kong always called for it and delivered it back to him when done.
When Yee Kong’s former landlord, Frank A. Bartlett, was interviewed, he reported his occupation as both bookkeeper and merchant. He recounted that Yee Kong had paid various rents to him for his laundry–starting out at $15 a month, then $25 and finally $100, the latter being paid during boom times in Port Townsend. The first laundry was in a one-story building that was about twenty feet wide by 30 feet long. According to Bartlett, that building burned down about 1886. Bartlett then leased the land to Yee Kong for $100 a month and Yee Kong built a new laundry. He was there about five or six years until that building also burned down. [The dates were not always consistent from one person to another, but that did not seem to matter to the interviewer.]
After considering the evidence, Henry A. Monroe decided that Ah Don and Ah Yun were born in the United States. They were admitted to the country as returning native-born Chinese persons.
“Ah Yun, photo, Form 430,” 1913, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, #7030/6363.
To be continued in October 2022 blog post.
[1] “Chinese Customs: Interesting Rites are Connected with Birth—Vary According to Province,” The Burlington Free Press and Times, Burlington, New Jersey, 4 March 1920, p.8; accessed Chroniclingamerica.loc.gov, 22 August 2022.
[2]Waverly B. Lowell, compiler, Chinese Immigration and Chinese in the United States: Records in the Regional Archives of the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, Reference Information paper 99, 1996, 1.
This case study was originally published in the Seattle Genealogical Society Bulletin. The citation for the complete article is: Trish Hackett Nicola, CG, “Chinese and the Northwest,” SGS (Seattle) Bulletin, 64-1 (Winter 2014) 39-47.
“Dorothy S. Luke Lee, 1912 Certified copy of 1910 Birth Certificate,” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Dorothy S. Luke Dee (Mrs. Kaye Hong), Box 770, File #7030/11435.
Dorothy S. Luke Lee, daughter of Luke Lee and Down Cook, was born on 15 March 1910 in Seattle, Washington. She went to China with her family in 1912 and returned a year later.
When Dorothy and her family applied to go to China in 1912, Doctor Cora Smith (Eaton) King was a witness for the family. Dr. King, the family’s physician for the past five years, testified that Dorothy’s father, Luke Lee, was a merchant in Seattle. She knew that at least three of their children were born in the U.S. She was present at the birth of the two youngest, Dorothy and Edwin S. Luke Lee, and she assisted in obtaining a certified copy of the birth certificate of Eugene Luke Lee, who was also born in the U.S.
In 1912, Dorothy’s mother, Down Cook (Mrs. Luke Lee), testified that she was 30 years old, and born in Quong Chaw village, Sunning district, China. She came to the U.S. in July 1907 through Sumas, Washington. At that time her husband was a merchant and member of Sing Fork & Company in New Haven, Connecticut. Their son, Luke Thick Kaye, (Dorothy’s older brother) born in Yen On village, Sunning district, China, came with them.
Luke Thick Kaye testified in 1912 that he was seven years old. He had been going to school for three years. His teacher at the Main Street school in Seattle was Miss Sadie E. Smith, and his present teacher at Colman School was Miss Rock.
Dorothy S. Luke Lee Certificate of Identity Application 9975
Dorothy S. Luke Lee, age 3, received Certificate of Identity #9975 as a returning citizen in 1913.
“Mrs Kaye Hong, Form 430 photo,” 1938
On 13 September 1938 Mrs. Kaye Hong, (Dorothy S. Luke Lee), age 28, applied to leave the U.S. from the Port of Seattle. She listed her address as 725 Pine Street, San Francisco, California. She testified that she married Kaye Hong (Hong Won Kee Kaye) on 7 September 1936.
Dorothy, her husband, and some of his family were making a short trip to Canada. They returned the next day through Blaine, Washington and were admitted.
Additional information not in the file: Keye Luke attended the University of Washington in Seattle and was an artist/illustrator before becoming an actor for films and television. He got his movie start playing Charlie Chan’s Number One Son, Lee Chan.
FYI: The CEA volunteers are still not back at NARA-Seattle but when we were all working together Rhonda Farrar called my attention to this file. Thank you, Rhonda!
[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before March 2020. thn]
Woo Quin Lock was born on 3 March 1920 at Kwong Tung, China. He was the son of a U.S. citizen. He arrived at the Port of Seattle on 2 February 1940 on the Princess Charlotte. He was denied admittance on 12 April 1940. His case was appealed on 10 May, and he was admitted on 10 August, more than eight months after his arrival. He received his Certificate of Identity No. 83265 two days later. The exhibits submitted in his case were an affidavit by his father, Woo Yen Tong, three letters written by the applicant to his father and their translations, a sample of the applicant’s handwriting, four Woo Seattle case files and eight San Francisco files for various Woos.
Woo Quin Lock’s father, Woo Yen Tong, swore in an affidavit that he was a United States citizen and that he had proved his citizenship to the Immigration Service after his arrival at the Port of San Francisco on 14 August 1911 and was issued a Certificate of Identity No. 4752. Three photos were attached to his affidavit.
Woo Quin Kwock, Woo Quin Lock, probably Woo Koon Sang Son: Woo Quin Lock; Father: Woo Yen Tong
“Woo Yen Tong, affidavit,” 1939, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Woo Quin Lock case file, Seattle Box 805, file 7030/12841.
During his 1940 testimony, Woo Quin Lock testified that his father sent him $1,200 in Hong Kong currency to cover his travel expenses. Chin Thick Gee a member of the Mow Fon Goon store in Hong Kong, purchased his ticket for him. His father owned two houses and a social hall in Wan Jew village. Overnight visitors stayed in the social hall which was the 8th house, 9th row, counting from the north. Gar Theung and Gar Thin, sons of his paternal uncle Get Tong were living in the building while they were guests of the family in 1938. The family owned an old house on the north side and a new house on the south side. The interrogator told Woo Quin Lock that his testimony about some of his uncles and cousins and the location of the houses did not agree with his father’s and brother’s testimony.
The case file contains more than sixty pages of documents and testimony. The following is an excerpt from the summary written by the Immigration Committee Chairman:
The alleged father, Woo Yen Tong, was originally admitted at San Francisco in 1909 as the foreign-born son of a native, Woo Gap.
Woo Yen Tong returned to China in 1919. He married Chen Shee and their son; Woo Quin Lock was born before he returned to the United States. He made several trips to China and four sons were born. Woo Quin Lock’s younger brother, Woo Quin Kwock arrived from China in 1939 and was admitted. He was a witness for Woo Quin Lock.
There were many discrepancies between the testimony of the applicant and his brother about their method and date of travel to Hong Kong, where they stayed on the way, and when they got there. The brothers did not agree on when and where their alleged younger brother attended school.
The interrogation committee decided that the relationship between Woo Quin Lock and his father and brother could not be established. They denied Lock admission to the United States, but he had the right to appeal. The case was reopened in April 1940 to reconsider the citizenship of the alleged father. Woo Yen Tong’s brother was called to testify. Woo Fong Tong (marriage name Sik Kew) presented his Certificate of Identity #10738 which was issued to him in San Francisco in 1913. He testified that he was forty-four, born (ca. 1894) in Wan Jew village, Toy San district, China. He was a laborer living in the Chicago Hotel in Spokane, Washington. He made two trips to China in 1921 and 1929 and returned through the port of San Francisco. He identified the photos that were attached to Fook Yen Tong’s affidavit and a photo of their father, Woo Gap, from his 1921 Certificate of Identify that was included in his San Francisco file. He correctly identified all the Woo photos from the Seattle and San Francisco files.
Woo Fong Tong described the burial ceremony for his father Woo Gap (the transcriber made a note that Gap was pronounced NGIP). Woo Gap died in 1929 and Woo Fong Tong took his remains, his whole body, not just his bones, back to China in a regular wooden casket which was placed in a wooden box lined with tin. After their arrival in Wan Jew village the shipping box was removed, and the casket was placed outside the village for a day for visitation by the family. Then the casket was opened briefly to give everyone one last look at the body. They had a regular burial procession with the whole family accompanying the casket to the burial place at Fong Ngow hill, about 2 lis (less than a mile) north of Wan Jew village. After Woo Gap was buried, the family worshipped at his grave.
Woo Gap was married three times and his father was married twice. There was much testimony in the case file about whether the Woo men were stepsons or half-brothers.
In May 1940, P. J. Hansen, wrote a reference letter for Woo Yen Tong, who he called Raymond Woo. Hansen stated that Woo had worked for him for nine years as cannery foreman and he considered him a conscientious and trustworthy employee. He offered his assistance in getting Woo’s son admitted to the United States.
The legal brief for the appeal on behalf of Woo Quin Lock conceded that Woo Quin Lock was a foreign-born son of Woo Yen Tong but left open the question of his father’s citizenship of the United States. Woo Yen Tong derived his citizenship through his father, Woo Gap. Woo Gap and his second wife Lee Shee were the parents of Woo Yen Tong. Woo Gap married Lee Shee before the death of his first wife which was legal under Chinese law and custom. Woo Gap’s first wife, Chow Shee, the mother of his four sons, was ill for many years and required constant care. Woo Gap’s second wife moved into the household and cared for Chow Shee and the children. Woo Yen Ton was the son of Woo Gap and Woo’s second wife, Lee Shee. He was born before Woo’s first wife died.
Woo Quin Lock’s attorney, Edward E. Merges, brought forward a May 1918 letter written by Philip B. Jones, Immigration Officer at San Francisco to the Commissioner of Immigration at Angel Island stating the merits Woo Gap’s status as a merchant (one of the exemptions to the Exclusion Act). Woo Gap was born in the United States, a merchant in Santa Cruz, California, and well-known by the community and the immigration station. He resided with his wife and their son Woo Yen Tong. They provided a home and schooling for their son which Immigration authorities thought was sufficient proof of their relationship. They were also impressed that Woo Gap was honest about his dual marriage. Woo Yen Tong’s case was submitted to the Central Immigration Office in Washington, D.C. and it was determined that Woo Gap was a citizen of the United States. His son, Woo Yen Tong, had been admitted as the son of a citizen. Finally, after an eight-month legal battle, Woo Quin Lock was admitted as the son a citizen on 20 August 1940. His new residence was 725 King Street, Seattle, Washington.
[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.
A big thank you to Kevin Lee of Australia for today’s blog post. Kevin summarized about 150 pages from three family Chinese Exclusion Act case files to give us a peek into his family history.
[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19 but the staff is working on a limited basis. They are taking requests for copies of files so get on their waiting list. If you would like a file, call or send your request to Archival Research, 206-336-5115, seattle.archives@nara.gov – THN]
Chin Hai Soon, also known as Chan Mei Chen (photo courtesy of Kevin Lee)
She was the daughter, the granddaughter, the wife, the sister, the aunt, the great aunt, the grandmother, the great grandmother of Chinese Americans.
One of the significant consequences of Congress passing the 1875 Page Act and multiple Chinese Exclusion Act (CEA) bills in 1882, 1892, 1902 and 1904 was that Chinese women were kept out of the United States. Female immigration to the U.S. was made extremely difficult, and it resulted in families being kept apart for years or decades. Without women, there would not be family, progeny, children, lineage – the Chinese population in the U.S. would just die off, which was the intention of the laws.
I learned more about my grandmother’s life 40 years after she passed away, than when she was alive, by visiting the National Archives at Seattle in November 2019, prior to the Coronavirus shutdown. The National Archives of Australia (NAA) operates similarly to the National Archives and Records Administration in the U.S., and Australia also had the ignominy of slavery (where the Indigenous / Aboriginal population suffered) and the White Australia Act (which excluded non-Europeans from immigrating; a policy just as discriminatory as the CEA).
Chin Cheo 陳超 and his family details, including daughter Chin Hai Soon, on an affidavit dated 26 December 1925, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, National Archives-Seattle, #7031/325.
From these 3 important CEA files in the National Archives facility at Sand Point Way, Seattle:
Great grandfather, CHIN Chear Cheo AKA CHIN Gon Foon (22 August 1871 – 6 March 1939 Seattle), case file no. 39184/2-12 (previously 682, 15844 and 30206)
Great uncle, CHIN Wing Quong 陳榮光 (5 September 1900 – 1918 Seattle), case file no. 28104
Great uncle, CHIN Wing Ung 陳榮棟 AKA Donald Wing-Ung CHIN (28 October 1913 – 5 September 2005), case file no. 7031/325 (previously 4985/10-3, 4989/10-3)
I was able to revive family members who had been long forgotten about or completely unknown, by constructing a family tree.
Chin family tree based on three Chinese Exclusion Act case files, National Archives-Seattle
By virtue of these 3 files at Seattle, I was able to establish my grandmother’s:
Real name / birth name: CHIN Hai Soon (pronounced in the Toisan dialect as ‘Ah Soon’) or CHAN Tai Shin (in the Cantonese dialect). She was a member of the Chin or Chan family; the different spellings are used interchangeably.
Mother’s name: Love SEETO, also known as SEE TOW Shee.
Adolescent name: CHAN Mei Chen 陳美珍 meaning treasure, valuable, precious, rare, which she certainly was.
Place of birth: in the village of Mi Gong, also spelled as Mai Kong, in the town of Hong Gong Lee, in the county of Hoi Ping, in the province of Kwangtung, Imperial China
Conception date: December 1903. This was based on CHIN Cheo’s file, as he departed Seattle on 31 October 1903, to sail 3 weeks onto Hong Kong, and then a further day to travel to the village near Canton City, Kwangtung Province, to meet-up with his wife, Love SEETO / SEE TOW Shee, whom he had not seen for over 3 years.
Date of birth: September 1904
CHIN Hai Soon / CHAN Mei Chen did not see her father when she was born, since he had already left Mainland China, travelled onto British Hong Kong in July 1904 to do business, as he was a merchant / co-owner / manager of Wing Sang Company, 412 Seventh Avenue, South, and Sang Yuen Company, 660 King Street, both in Seattle.
CHIN Hai Soon / CHAN Mei Chen grew up with her paternal grandfather CHIN Gin Heung (in the Toisan dialect) or CHAN Yen Hing (in the Cantonese dialect), as the only male influence in her life, because her father CHIN Cheo 陳超 lived 59 out of his lifetime of 67 years in the United States. Her grandfather CHIN Gin Heung / CHAN Yen Hing had come back to Mi Gong village from Seattle, 10 years prior to her birth. He had lived in the USA continuously for 12 to 13 years, firstly in San Francisco, then in Seattle, working as a laundryman from 1880 to 1892/1893, and heading back to the village in China prior to his 50th birthday, to celebrate with his family using his hard-earned wealth, and prior to the law requiring him to hold a U.S. Certificate of Residency. No CEA case file of CHIN Gin Heung / CHAN Yen Hing could be found in either San Bruno, California nor Seattle, Washington, as his arrival and departure dates from the USA were too early for Customs and Immigration to have kept records.
1st time meeting father: 1912 as an 8-year-old girl, when CHIN Cheo sailed out of Mi Gong, via Hong Kong, to procreate again with Love SEETO / SEE TOW Shee to produce a future brother and future Seattle resident CHIN Wing Ung (case file no. 7031/325).
2nd and final time meeting father: 1919 as a 15-year-old adolescent when CHIN Cheo came back with a heavy heart from Seattle to Mi Gong to announce to Love SEETO / SEE TOW Shee of the death of her older brother CHIN Wing Quong (case file no. 28104) in Seattle, and to bring back his remains. CHIN Hai Soon / CHAN Mei Chen remembers the hysteria and grief felt by her mother Love SEETO / SEE TOW Shee over the loss of the number 1 son from accidental poisoning at the drug store co-located within the Wing Sang Company, a business managed and part-owned by her father, CHIN Cheo in Seattle.
Date of marriage: 1925, as a 21-year-old, to YU Fu Lok AKA YEE Wing Hon, of Num Bin / Nom Bing Chuen, who was a resident of Ohio and Michigan (case file not yet found). CHIN Hai Soon / CHAN Mei Chen, being in China, only met her U.S.-based husband 4 times during their marriage, and 3 of those occasions were to conceive a child, with the last pregnancy being the birth of my mother, YU Siu Lung (later known as Siu Lung YU LEE 李余小濃) in 1936.
Date of death: CHIN Hai Soon / CHAN Mei Chen died on 29th March 1982 in Num Bin / Nom Bing village, Hoi Ping county, surrounded by close family members, but separated by distance and time from her U.S.-based father CHIN Cheo, two U.S.-based brothers, CHIN Wing Quong and Wing Ung, and her U.S.-based husband, YU Fu Lok / YEE Wing Hon.
Living in China sadly meant my grandmother did not see these 4 U.S.-based family members for many years:
Father, CHIN Cheo from mid-1904 – January 1913 (the first 8 years of her life); from September 1913 – May 1919 (a gap of 5½ years); from mid-1921 – 6 March 1939 death in Seattle (the last 17½ years of his life)
Older brother, CHIN Wing Quong, from mid-1910 – late 1918 death in Seattle (the last 8 years of his life)
Younger brother, CHIN Wing Ung AKA Donald Wing-Ung CHIN, from September 1932 until late 1981 (a separation of 49 years or almost ½ a century, caused by firstly the Japanese invasion of China, then World War II and then the Communist regime in China closing its borders).
Husband, YU Fu Lok / YEE Wing Hon, from 1938 – 1961 (not seen for 23 years until his death in Detroit).
1982 letter sent from China to Donald Wing Ung CHIN in Seattle to advise of the death of his older sister, CHIN Hai Soon / CHAN Mei Chen (courtesy of the Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience, Seattle, item no. 2001_030_001b)
The damage of 60-plus years of the Chinese Exclusion Act was irreparable, as it split Chinese males living in the USA from their families back home in China. It meant daughters and wives did not have strong male influences, and family sizes were kept small. It was only by uncovering the CEA files at the National Archives that I learnt of the many facts that had been kept secret about my family for 140 years.
[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 reopens. THN]
Ng Wing Yin arrived at the Port of Seattle on 28 January 1929 was deported after almost two months in detention. He could not prove his relationship to his alleged father, Ng Wah Lai, a U.S. citizen.
His attorney, Hugh C. Todd, wrote to the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, D.C. regarding Ng’s appeal. Ng Wing Yin was first denied admission in January 1927. His 1929 entry was his second attempt to enter the U.S. Todd argued that no one except a father would try to bring his son into the country twice. Anyone else would have given up. This application included a photo taken in 1921 of the father and son when the son was ten years old. Todd pointed out the resemblance between the two—their posture, eyes, nose, ears and chin, even the curl of the mouth. The photograph was not included in the 1927 earlier entry application.
“Ng Wing Yin and Ng Wah Lai photo” 1921 , Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ng Wing Yin case file, Seattle Box 1118, file 10346/10-12.
[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 reopens. THN]
In 1929 Ng Wing Yin was seventeen years old and a student. He was born in Woy Lung Lee village, Sun Wei Ning District, China. He was attempting to enter the U.S. as the son of a native. His parents were Ng Wah Lai (marriage name Yuk Moon), and Mar Shee. He presented an affidavit with a photo of him with his father stating that his father was a United States citizen.
Ng Wing Yin was questioned about the first time he tried to enter the U.S. in 1926. He was denied, it was appealed, denied again, and he was deported. He was asked why he was trying to enter again since he was debarred the first time. He did not reply. His only witness was his father.
Ng Wah Lai testified that he was born in Riverside, California and that he had lived in Durango, Colorado for four years and planned to go back there. He was currently working at the Kwong Man Yuen store at 701 King Street in Seattle. He showed his certificate of identity #4188 issued at Boston, Massachusetts in 1911. The only proof he had that Ng Wing Yin was his son was the photo of them together. The immigration authorities agreed that the people in the photo were Ng Wah Lai and Ng Wing Yin but that did not prove their relationship. They had no new witnesses or evidence except for the photo taken of them together in 1921. They asked Ng Wah Lai why he was going through this process again when nothing had changed. Ng said, “He is my son and is anxious to come to the U.S.”
Ng Wing Yin was unable to prove that he was the blood son of Ng Wah Lai so he was denied entry into the U.S. Their attorney appealed, it was denied, and Ng Wing Yin was deported, again.
