Tag Archives: China

Lee Ah Jung & Wong Gun Fook – Helena, Montana

application for citizen's return certificate, Application for Pre-investigation Status, Application for return certificate as merchant, Board of Special Inquiry, Group Photo, passport, San Francisco file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The file for Lee Ah Jung starts in May 1919. It refers to an 1889 U.S. District Court of California certified judgment file in San Francisco for Lee Ah Jung and his wife Wong Gun Fook. Copies of the judgment are not included in this file but were sent to San Francisco for review and to certify their correctness. Lee Ah Jung was applying for a passport as a United States citizen. Wong Gun Fook’s birth certificate was included in the packet. Lee Ah Jung arrived at the port of San Francisco on 16 May 1898 on the S.S. Doric.

The San Francisco immigration officer could not find any files on Lee Ah Jung and Wong Gun Fook for the dates given. They did find an arrival date for Wong Gum Fook (SF file 10282/107) with her alleged mother Chin Shee (SF file 10282/106), and her brother Wong How (SF file 10282/4463) on 7 October 1908. Wong Lung (SF file 9778/152), husband of Chin Shee, and father of Wong Gun Fook, appeared as a witness for them.

“Lee Ah Jung family photo,” 1919, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Lee Ah Jung and Wong Gun Fook, Box H002, Helena file 3/1112. 
Lee Ah Jung, Wong Gun Fook, Lee How Kun/Kum (1), Lee Fong Hoe/Hai (2), Lee Gin Wah (3), Lee Tai Ling (4), and Lee Gat/Goat Oye (5)
The immigration inspector signed his name across the photo. It looks like the stockings for Lee Gin Wah #3 have a pattern but it is the signature.

Their documents were sent to the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, DC, but on 3 June 1919, but their Immigration Officer wrote to Immigration office in Helena informing them that they had not followed proper procedures to obtain the necessary papers for Lee Ah Jung and family to travel to China. They listed five points that needed to be corrected or improved.

  1. The Bureau of Immigration does not issue passports. The State Department requires proper requests.
  2. Return certificates have not been requested for investigation.
  3. Requests for pre-investigation of status have not been received.
  4. The Bureau has not received birth information on Lee Ah Jung’s wife or children.
  5. It is customary to examine all applicants for return certificates.

Wong Gun Fook was interviewed in Helena, Montana on 24 June 1919. She was 27 years old, born on the 3rd floor of a building on Dupont Street in San Francisco in April, but she was not sure of the day or year. Her parents were living. Her father was in San Francisco, and her mother was living in Canton City, China. Her only sibling, a brother, died many years ago. The last time she saw her father was in during the 1915 San Francisco Exposition. She married Lee Ah Jung in San Francisco according to Chinese custom in 1909 and then moved to Helena, Montana. They had five children, all born in Helena from 1910 to 1918 and had all of their birth certificates. Phil Baldwin, the examining inspector, asked Wong Gun Fook to identity the people in an old group photo. She said they were her father, Wong Lung, her mother, Chin She, and herself at about seven years old. Baldwin thought the photo was a good likeness of her even though it was taken when Wong Gun Fook was a child. That photo was not included in the file but there was a recent photo of Wong Gun Fook with her husband and their five children. During her interview Fook described her former home in Canton, China, as a big house with four rooms facing south on Hung Dock Street and 4th Alley with an outside door and four inside doors.

Lee Ah Jung was interviewed the same day as his wife and his 1889 court discharge papers were examined. He was born in San Francisco, and his marriage name was Lee Hing Sing. His family was from Hen Kai, a small village about thirty-five miles from the coast in China. It had about nine or ten houses, all homes of his relatives. He explained who lived where, the direction their house was facing, and the names of their children. He was asked if he was going to adopt and children when he was in China. He said, “No, Sir, I have enough.”

When Lee Ah Jung signed his Form 430, Application for Alleged American Citizen for the Chinese Race for Preinvestigation, he signed the name of his infant son, Lee Gat/Goat Oye, in English and Chinese 李月愛. This error was not caught by any of the immigration officials but does add a little confusion to the file.  

On 10 July 1919, The Assistant Commissioner-General of the Bureau of Immigration, Washington, DC, said they were satisfied with the applications and documents they received, and approved the return certificates for the family. Lee Ah Jung and his wife Wong Gun Fook could now apply for their passports.

The next document in Lee Ah Jung’s file is a letter dated 22 March 1941 from Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) saying that Lee Fong Hai, son of Lee Ah Jung and Wong Gun Fook, arrived at the Port of San Francisco on s s. President Coolidge on 13 March 1941 and was admitted two days later. There was no communication between any immigration office about the Helena file since 1919. Lee Fong Hai’s sister, Lee How Kun/Kum, arrived at San Francisco on the s.s. President Coolidge on 3 July 1941. She was admitted on 22 July after being approved by a board of special inquiry.

There are 186 Chinese Exclusion Act case files at National Archives at Seattle for Helena, Montana. Only 4 of them start in the 1890s–1 each in 1894 & 1899 and 2 in 1896, and the other files start in 1900 and later. The destination for these Chinese entering the United States was in Montana or Idaho, and 1 each in Washington, New York, Utah, and Oregon and 2 in New Jersey.

[Thanks Hao-Jan Chang, NARA CEA volunteer, for replicating the Chinese symbols for the signature.]

Bertha Wong aka Chu Yee – Case Study by Elena Wong Viscovich, Ed.D.

Immigration law, slavery, trafficking,, supervised parole, compassionate advocacy,, U.S. Immigration Service, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In January 2023, Elena Wong Viscovich, Ed.D., sent an update and clarification on the post for Donaldina Cameron and the Ming Quong Home.

Applicant Chu (Jew) Yee, 1914

Dr. Viscovich recently completed an in-depth case study on the complicated story of Bertha Wong (Chu Yee), a Chinese orphan paroled into the custody of Donaldina Cameron at the Presbyterian Mission Home in San Francisco in 1914.

Download PDF

Charley Kee (Ng Hock On) – Seattle Merchant

Affidavit, Application for return certificate as merchant, Certificate of Residence, Form 431, laborer, Partner, Photographs, Re-Entry Permit, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
A historical photograph of Yim Gee (also known as Yim Kee), a Chinese merchant in Washington, with a handwritten document in the background detailing his affidavit and personal information.
“Charley Kee (Ng Hock On) Affidavit,” 1892, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

In December 1892, Yim Gee [in later testimony he is known as Yim Kee, Charley Kee, and Ng Hock On  伍學端], asked for permission to file an affidavit to certify he was a merchant at the Gim Lung Company in Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington. He was twenty-six years old and was born in Canton, China. He landed in San Francisco in 1880 and came to Port Townsend in 1889. His photograph was included in the document. Two white witnesses, J. W. Jones and L. B. Hastings, swore that he was a reputable citizen and they had known him for more than two years.

Charley Kee applied for a Certificate of Departure for a trip to China in 1900. Although his application was approved, there is nothing in the file that shows that he left the U.S.

In 1911 while working as a merchant and partner at King Chung Lung & Co. in Seattle, (Ng) Hock On, applied for preinvestigation of his status as a merchant. He was forty-seven. His childhood name was Yim Kee and he was born in Sai Ping Hong village. His wife was of the Lee family and they had two sons. His elder son, Tai Jung, was 18 years old and going to school in Seattle. His other son, Tai Sin, was in China. His firm sold Chinese goods in Pendleton, Walla Walla, Umatilla, and other nearby towns.

Ah King, a prominent Chinese citizen in Seattle, and manager of the King Chung Lung Co., was a witness for Hock On  學端. There were nine other partners. Ah King testified that Hock On paid $500 for his interest in the company and was a bona fide partner. Hock On’s application required two credible (Caucasian) witnesses. His witnesses were C. M. Rodman, a salesman for the Norris Safe & Lock Co., and J. J. McAvoy, a storekeeper. His application with his photo was approved.

A black and white photograph of a young Asian man in formal attire, with neatly styled hair, presenting an official document regarding his merchant status.
“Ng Hock On, Form 431,” 1911, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547

Hock On returned in May 1913. During his admission interview he said he wanted to surrender his “choc chee” (Certificate of Residence) and obtain a Certificate of Identity. [His Certificate of Residence is in his file but did not apply for a Certificate of Identity.]

A historical Certificate of Residence document issued to Charley Kee, a Chinese laborer residing in Port Townsend, Washington. The certificate includes a photograph of Kee and contains handwritten details about his identity, age, and local residence.
“Charley Kee, Certificate of Residence,” 1894, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

He applied for another trip to China in 1921. He gave his American name as Charlie Kee. He was still a partner at King Chung Lung Company at 707 King Street in Seattle. The capital stock of the company was a little over $35,000 and the company did over $70,000 in business in 1920. Kee’s Caucasian witnesses were Daniel Landon, an attorney, and Victor K. Golden, an automobile mechanic. B. A. Hunter, Examining Inspector, visited the store and saw no reason to doubt Kee’s testimony.

Hock On returned to the U.S. in May 1925. He declared he had four sons. His son, Ng Tai Sheung was admitted in April 1926 and his son, Ng Tai Der was admitted in July 1927 at Seattle. They were attending school in Pullman, Washington.

In 1930 Hock On was again applying for a reentry permit for his upcoming trip to China. The Seattle District Commissioner wrote to the Commissioner in Washington, D.C., asking that they compare Kee’s Certificate of Residence with their original record. The original certificate agreed with the duplicate on file at D.C., so they issued a Return Permit.

An immigration reentry permit issued to Ng Hock On, featuring his photograph, personal details, and official stamps.
“Ng Hock On, “Permit to Reenter the U.S,” 1930, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Hock On, Box 891, File 7032/547.

Hock On returned to Seattle in August 1931. He applied for another trip to China in July 1934. This time he was applying as a laborer. He left Seattle on 21 July 1934. There is nothing in the file to indicate that he returned to Seattle but there is 1949 correspondence between immigration offices in Seattle, Walla Walla, Spokane, Washington; Vancouver, B.C.; and San Francisco, California; pertaining to Hock On’s sons Lee Tin Yee and Ng Tai Dor, and Ng Tai Sheung.

Hock On’s Reference Sheet lists the name and file numbers for his wife and four sons.

Ai-Li Sung Chin – PhD in Sociology from Radcliffe College

Alien Registration File Number, photo, Precis of Investigation, Section 6 Student, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ai Li Sung arrived at the Port of Seattle as a Section Six nonquota student in September 1937. She was born on 13 April 1919 in Shanghai, China. After graduating from St. Mary’s Hall, an Episcopalian high school for girls in Shanghai, she was awarded a $1,000 scholarship for Colby Junior College, New London, New Hampshire. She received an additional $300 from her father, Sung Xau-yuen, an electrical engineer for Inniss and Riddle Company in Shanghai. Miss Frances MacKinnon, a teacher at St. Mary’s was a witness for her. Ai Li was issued a passport that expired in July 1940.

“Sung Ai Li, Precis of Investigation photo,” 1937, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Sung Ai Li, Box 395, File 7028/1041.

The Registrar at Colby Junior College had to report twice a year to immigration officials about non-quota immigrant students enrolled at the school. They were asked to confirm whether each student was taking a full schedule of daytime classes. They also had to report if a student had left the school and was expected to return but had not. In those cases, they needed to provide the student’s current address or the name and address of someone who could help locate them. If a student had left the U.S. or was planning to leave soon, the report had to include the departure date, the ship’s name, and the port of departure.

H. Leslie Sawyer, the President of Colby, notified the Department of Labor that Ai Li Sung graduated on 12 June 1939 and was transferring to Wellesley College in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the fall.

  Ai Li completed her “Application to Extend Time of Admission as Nonquota Student” form in November 1939 and it was granted for two years.

  In 1941 while a student at Wellesley, Ai Li was employed as a domestic servant by Mrs. Richard Sanger in Cambridge in exchange for room and board. She also worked at the college library for .35 per hour or about $5 per month. Ai Li graduated in June 1941 and was admitted to Radcliffe Graduate School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, on a fellowship for 1941-42.

In 1941, Ai Li received an extension to September 1943. She stated that she had worked as an advertising agent for the Chinese Student Directory from December 1940 to Jan 1941 and received $40. She hoped to obtain a master’s degree in Sociology.

In September 1942, Ai Li wrote to Immigration and Naturalization in Philadelphia, telling them that she received notice from the Civil Service Commission informing her that she received permanent status with the Office of War Information (OWI). She asked if her status should be changed from student to non-student classification. [Immigration did not respond to her question.]

 Ai Li received her Master of Arts from Radcliffe in March 1943. In April she received a notice saying that since she was no longer a student she should apply for a temporary visitor status or she may continue with her status as student while she was training if her work was in the same field as her studies. She notified Immigration that she was a housewife, now married to Robert Chin, living in Washington, D.C. and waiting to be hired by the U.S. Government as a sociologist. Her student classification would expire in September 1943. If she did not receive a sociologist position by then, her status would change to temporary visitor. In May 1943, Ai Li notified Immigration that she had a three-month temporary position for the Research and Analysis Division at the OWI as a translator of Chinese documents. She was hoping to get a one-year research fellowship with the American Council for Learned Societies to make a sociological study of the Chinese family and personality.

While waiting to hear about the research fellowship, Ai Li continued to work for OWI (Office of War Information) as a Press Analyst. She now had an alien registration file, number 1456606. His husband, Robert Chin, worked for the Federal Communication Commission.

In November 1943, Ai Li applied for another extension as a nonquota student stating that she held a permanent position with OWI. It was granted through 4 December 1944. In June 1944 her annual salary was $2,600.

Because of illness she left her job in February 1945. In November 1945, after World War II had ended, Ai Li Lung Chin, who was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, wrote from the Glenn Dale Sanatorium in Maryland asking for another extension of her student status. Her passport was expiring in a few days on 4 December. She was enrolled in a correspondence course through the University of Wisconsin. While she was recovering, her physician advised her not to travel for two years. He sent a letter to Immigration with the details of her illness. Immigration also needed to know the status of her husband.

In February 1946, Ai Li asked for another extension and answered their query about her husband, Robert Chin–he was a citizen of the United States, born in China. She was granted an extension to 4 December 1946. The final document in Ai Li Sung Chin’s file is a letter dated 5 September 1946. It stated that Ai Li Sung married an honorably discharged citizen member of the armed forces on 21 February 1943… she was found admissible on 9 August 1946 under the Act of 28 December 1945 (Public laws 271), The War Brides Act 1946 & 1946.

Extra information not in the file:
According to the 7 May 2017 issue of The Boston Globe, Boston, Massachusetts, page B7:
Ai-li Shen Chin, age 98, died 25 Apr 2017, in Lexington, Massachusetts.  She enjoyed writing, painting, playing the piano, and ballroom dancing. Her husband Robert Chin, preceded in death.


Chin Hing Chung – Kennebec, Maine

Affidavit, interview questions, Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, son of citizen, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chin Soy, a U.S. born citizen, wanted to bring his son in China, Chin Hing Chung, to the United States.

Chin Soy swore in an affidavit in March 1937 at Kennebec, Maine, that he was born in the United States about 1880 and was therefore a U.S. citizen. He was issued a Certificate of Identity in Seattle, Washington, in 1916 and was a resident of Waterville, Maine.

“Chin Soy Affidavit photos,” 1937, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Chin Hing Chung, Box 733, File 7030/10206.

Between 1905 and 1932, he had visited China five times. On his 1905 trip he married Dong Shee. They had six children. In 1937 Chin Soy was applying to have his son, Chin Hing Chung, come to the United States with the status as the son of a U.S. native. According to the amended section 1993 (48 Stat. 797) children born abroad to U.S. citizens prior to May 24, 1934 were citizens. The ruling stated that: 

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child.  In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.

In 1937 Chin Hing Chung, marriage name Chin Kung Pon, was twenty years old (American reckoning). During Chin’s hearing he was reminded that it was his burden to prove he was not subject to exclusion. On 9 August 1931 he testified that he was born at Soo Oon village, Lock Toon, Sun Ning district, China on 25 January 1917. During Chin’s interrogation he was asked about his parents, their siblings, his siblings and nieces and nephews and his grandparents. He described his home as a five-room brick house with tile floors in all rooms and an open court paved with stone. It had two doors, with two windows in each bedroom. The windows all had iron bars and wooden shutters. The windows under the loft had glass. There was a shrine loft in the parlor. There were about 500 or 600 houses in the village. He was asked about the layout of the houses in the village, the width of the streets, and where the market and social hall were located. The interviewer asked specific questions, such as, who lives in the first house, fifth row, north of main street, his name and age, and number of their children and their names. Similar questions were asked about other people in the village. Did the village have an ancestral hall? A railway station? A school? Who were the teachers? Was there a fishpond? Did his father smoke? Were there any photographs or paintings in his house? Did his mother have a vegetable or flower garden? Did he attend his brother’s wedding feast? Was there anything in his house to represent his ancestors? Did his sister or sister-in-law have bobbed hair? Chin Hing Chung testified that there was a group picture taken of his mother, two brothers, sister and himself about 1922 or 1923. There were seven pages of interrogation.

Chin Hing Chung’s answers were compared to the interview answers of his father and his two previously landed brothers. It was decided that there were no significant differences. In spite of this, Chin Soy, the alleged father, and Chin Keong, the alleged brother, were interviewed again two weeks later. This time the Chinese Inspector, John A. Carney, noted these differences: direction in which the home village faces, the location of the head of the village, and the location of certain ancestral halls. The father and brother both said there was never a group photograph taken of the family. Their interviews were twenty-nine pages long. Their statements might include valuable anecdotal family information about their lives in China that may not be recorded in any other documents.

Chin Hing Chung was interviewed again about the difference between his testimony and his father and brother’s. His answers were satisfactory; the Chairman of the Board of Special Inquiry concluded that Chin Hing Chung was the son of a U.S. citizen, Chin Soy, who had been readmitted as a native-born citizen several times. And Chin Soy was in China at the time when Chin Hing Chung was conceived. Chin Hing Chung was admitted at the Port of Seattle on 3 September 1937 as a U.S. citizen, a little over six weeks after he arrived. He joined his father in Waterville, Maine.

The Reference Sheet in the file includes the names of Chin Hing Chung’s father and two brothers and their file numbers.

Chee Tuck – Port Gamble & Port Ludlow, WA Laborer

Affidavit, Application for laborer's return certificate, Certificate of Residence, Liberty Bond, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Eng See Fay Affidavit Photo,” 1899, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Chee Tuck, Box 891, File 7032/569.

The first document in Chee Tuck’s file is a 10 August 1899 affidavit. He was applying for a certificate of departure and return at Port Townsend, Washington for his trip to China. His witnesses, Eng See Fay, of the firm Lun Ying Co., and Clew Non, both swore that they were in debt to Chee Tuck for a total of $1,200.  A photo of Eng See Fay with his name written across the photo is attached to the affidavit. According to his interview, Chee Tuck obtained a Certificate of Residence in Oregon in 1894, he lived in Port Gamble, Washington; was 31 years old, and worked as a cook. He planned on leaving from the Port of Tacoma, Washington.

“Chee Tuck Affidavit,” 1904, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chee Tuck, Box 891, File 7032/569.

The file does not show when he returned but he applied to leave again in 1904. Lung Kee still owed him $1,100 and was his witness. There was no official note for the transaction, but A. F. Richardson, the Chinese Inspector, believed it was valid. A photo of Chee Tuck was attached to the affidavit. He was then living in Port Ludlow and was a cook in the Port Ludlow Hotel, making $45 a month.

Lung Kee was interviewed in 1905. He testified that he borrowed $1,100 in gold from Chee Tuck in 1902 so he could build a house in China. (Eng) Lung Kee obtained his chak chi (Certificate of Residence) in 1894 at Portland.
In 1905 another witness, Ng Gow, testified that he witnessed Chee Tuck transferring the $1,100 in gold to Lung Kee in 1902.  When Chee Tuck returned from China in September 1905, he was admitted as a duly registered Chinese laborer. He testified that he was twelve years old when he landed at the Port of San Francisco in 1880. From there he went to Port Townsend.

“Chee Tuck Form 432, Application Chinese Laborer for Return Certificate,” 1911, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chee Tuck, Box 891, File 7032/569.

Chee Tuck applied to leave in 1911. He gave his married name as Ng Yee Ham. His wife was Lee She and they had a six-year-old son named Koon Dock. They were living in Gim Lung village, Sunning District, China. Chee Tuck returned in November 1912 and was admitted.
In 1929 Chee Tuck, age 61, applied for a laborer’s return certificate. Another son was born after his last visit but now both sons had died. It is assumed that his debt due from Lung Kee was paid off because now he filled the debt requirement by owning a $1,000 Liberty Loan bond. Chee Tuck returned in November 1930 and was admitted. There is no more information in his file.

“Chee Tuck Form 432, Return Certificate Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborer,” 1929, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Chee Tuck, Box 891, File 7032/569.

Chee Tuck’s file contains nothing jarring or unusual . He fulfilled all the requirements for a returning laborer. Immigration officials reviewed his paperwork and approved it. The photos stand out—one for his witness in 1899 and photos of Chee Tuck in 1904, 1911, and 1929. It had been eighteen years between Tuck’s last visits to China and by the time he went back, both of his sons had died. How sad.

Elsie Chung Lyon – International Registered Nurse and Lecturer

Lecturer,, obituary, Permit to Reenter, Photographs, Ports on Entry, Registered Nurse,, Traveler, Wife of U.S. Citizen, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Elise Chung Lyon was born in Stawell, Australia, about one hundred forty miles from Melbourne. She first come to the United States in 1923 from China with her husband Bayard Lyon. They lived in Elkhorn, Wisconsin with their three children, Marguerite, Hugh, and David. Her brother Fred Mowfung Chung also lived in Elkhorn.
Elsie’s exempt status was “wife of citizen, admitted to U.S. prior to July 1, 1924.” She had reentry permits from 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1934, each with her photograph attached. When she arrived in 1934, she was forty-seven years old. Her file does not have much personal information. Elsie’s 1929 Form 505, Certificate of Admission of Alien, lists her occupation as lecturer.

“Elise Chung Lyon Reentry Permit Photo,” 1932, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Elsie Chung Lyon (Mrs. Bayard Lyon), Box 879, File 7032/263.

Elsie’s file does record a confusing incident with immigration authorities upon her arrival in Seattle from China via Vancouver, B.C. on Saturday, 10 November 1928. She was returning from a three-month tour of China. Mrs. Lyon, a lecturer on international relations, and nine other Chinese passengers were threatened with being locked up by immigration authorities for the weekend. David Young, a representative of the Seattle Chinese consulate, managed to get Mrs. Lyon released to his custody as a matter of courtesy.

A 13 November 1928 newspaper article titled, “Chinese Wife of American is Held Here”1 is included in her file. The article quoted Elsie Chung Lyon, “I’m rather sorry now that I did not suffer myself to be locked up because I would be better able to understand the indignation my countrymen feel on entering this country.” She noted that her papers were in order and she had been admitted two times previously without a problem. She promised that she would take the matter up with Secretary Kellogg in Washington, D.C. [Frank Billings Kellogg served in the U.S. Senate and as U.S. Secretary of State.] The article or the 1928 forms in her file do not say exactly why Lyon was being held or what happened to the other Chinese passengers.

In September 1929, Mr. J. J. Forster, Steamship General Passenger Agent of Vancouver, British Columbia wrote a letter to Mr. Luther Weedin, Commissioner of the U.S. Department of labor in Seattle concerning a compliant of Mrs. Elsie Chung Lyon about the ports of entry for readmittance to the United States. Mrs. Lyon was complaining that she had not been told the requirements covering her entry. Forster explained:

1. All Chinese ports of entry are not advised when return permits are issued.
 2. The Vancouver office did not know where the permit was issued or which port she departed to China from.
3. Chinese with return permits are entitled to admission to the U.S. through any port designated as a port of admission for Chinese.

Rules of October 1, 1926, governing the admission of Chinese gives the following on Ports on Entry:
“No Chinese person, other than a Chinese diplomatic or consular officer, shall be permitted to enter the United States at any seaport other than at the ports of Port Townsend or Seattle, Wash.; Portland, Oreg.; San Francisco, San Pedro, or San Diego, Calif; New Orleans, La.; New York, N.Y.; Boston, Mass.; San Juan or Ponce, P.R.; and Honolulu, Hawaii.”

According to her file, Elsie Chung Lyon continued traveling without any problems. The last entry notes that she left from San Francisco on 19 October 1936. “See Imm. File 117/9/36.”

Other information not included in the file:
On 12 September 1947, Elsie Chung Lyon’s letter to The New York Times criticizing General Wedemeyer’s statement on China was published. Lyon had recently worked seventeen months with the Chinese Nationalist Army in China and thought she was more able than Wedemeyer to evaluate the miserable and dehumanizing condition of the Chinese people and their need for honest leadership. She did not want America to continue “to grant aid to the present tyrannical regime…”

Death Information and Obituary for Elsie Chung Lyon:
Elsie Chung Lyon, the daughter of Mow Fun Chung and Mow Fung Huishe of China, was born in Australia in 1887. She died at Fort Worth, Texas on 16 Dec 1963 at age 76 years.2
Elsie graduated as a registered nurse from London School of Nursing and Medical Administration in England and was a registered nurse at the American Bureau for Medical Aid to China. She served as a lieutenant colonel in the Nationalist Chinese Army during World War II. After her return to the U.S., she translated English language nursing texts into Chinese. Her translation of Midwifery for Nurses (Hu shi jie chan xu zhi ) by Henry Russell is listed in the National Institutes of Health library catalog.3
Elsie Chung Lyon became a U.S. citizen in 1947. She was survived by a son David in Missouri, a son Hugh in Virginia and a daughter, Mrs. Margaret McHarg of Bellevue, Washington.4

[This file is the combined effort of the Chinese Exclusion Act Indexing team at the National Archives at Seattle. Rhonda Farrer indexed the file. She was intrigued by the story and shared it with Joyce Liu. Joyce found the NYT’s article. They gave me a copy of their findings. From there I obtained Elsie’s death certificate and obituary and wrote it up for the blog. THN]

  1. Alice Elinor, “Chinese Wife of American is Held Here” Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle, WA, p3. ↩︎
  2. Elsie Chung Lyon, 16 Dec 1963, Texas Department of State Health Services; Austin Texas, USA; Texas Death Certificates, 1903–1982, Ancestry.com ↩︎
  3. Henry Russell Andrews, Hu shi jie chan xu zhi [Midwifery for nurses], (Shanghai : Guang 1941), National Library of Medicine, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101541743. ↩︎
  4. “Native of China: Pioneer in Nursing Dies Here,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Texas, 17 Dec 1963, p.32. Newspapers.com ↩︎

Sullivan T. Mar – Diplomat/Student

Correspondence, diplomatic passport, passport, Seattle Daily Times, Sec. 13 Dipomat, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Sullivan T. Mar, a Chinese citizen, entered the United States in 1927 his status was as a student with a diplomatic passport.

This section of the Chinese Exclusion Act applied to him:
SEC.13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned and shall exempt them and their body and house- hold servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.1

Sullivan T. Mar (Teh-Chien Mar) was the Chancellor of Chinese Consulate in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  On 11 January 1927 he traveled from Vancouver by train stopping in Blaine, Washington before arriving in Seattle. He was thirty-one years old and was born in Foochow, China. He had a diplomatic passport issued by the Chinese Consulate in Vancouver and a U.S. passport issued by the American Consulate General. According to the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, D.C. since Mar was admitted as an official, he was not required to comply with the rules governing alien students even though he had originally been admitted as a student at the University of Washington.

Mar made a short visit to Vancouver on 17 July 1928. The Immigration Service office in Seattle gave him a one-page certificate for identification. It contained his photo and signature and was only valid for one week for his readmission through the Port of Seattle. It could not be used as a certificate of residence or certificate of landing. He returned the next day and was admitted with his diplomatic passport.

Immigration Service Correspondence, Re: Sullivan T. Mar,” 1928, CEA, NARA Sea, Seattle Box 837, file 7031/120
“Immigration Service Correspondence, Re: Sullivan T. Mar,” 1928, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Sullivan T. Mar, Seattle Box 837, file 7031/120

Although there is no more official immigration activity in Sullivan T. Mar’s file, an undated newspaper clipping was inserted into his file. Mar wrote to the editor of the Seattle Daily Times regarding the September 1931 Japanese Imperial Army invasion of Manchuria, China.

Japan had suffered heavy financial losses from the 1929 Great Depression and Manchuria was rich in natural resources, forests and fertile farmland. Japan had already invested in Manchurian railroads and wanted to expand their holdings in China. These activities led to the 2nd Sino-Japanese War which began in 1937 when China began full-scale resistance to the expansion of Japanese influence in its territory.2

Mar wrote a letter to the editor because he disagreed with a speech Dr. Herbert H. Gowan had given on 18 December 1931 at the Lions’ Club concluding that Japan’s military activities were not an act of aggression. Mar was a former student of Dr. Gowan at the University of Washington. He respected Gowan’s knowledge of “Orient history” but thought Gowan was ill-informed about the current conditions. Mar listed six points of disagreement in Dr. Gowan’s stance.  Mar listed Japan’s 1915 Twenty-0ne Demands, the large number of troops entering Manchuria, President Wilson’s response to the demands, Japan’s demand that China recognize the demands, Japan setting up a puppet government in Mukden, and Dr. Gowan presumption that he had more knowledge of the situation than the United States government and League of Nations. Mar suggested American business interests should consult with the reports on file at the State Department and the Department of Commerce for a history of Japan’s activities to control trade in Manchuria.

Letters From Times Readers: Japan Intentions,” Seattle Daily Times, Seattle, WA, 31 December 1931, p6.
“Letters From Times Readers: Japan Intentions,” Seattle Daily Times, Seattle, WA, 31 December 1931, p6.

He signed his letter S. T. Mar [Sullivan T. Mar].  A handwritten note beside the newspaper clipping states,  “One S. J. Mar has an oriental shop in Shafer Building—across from F & N [Frederick & Nelson]. Also Telephone Book shows S. J. Mar 700 – 8th Ave.”

 

 

  1. “An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese, Sec. 13,” Immigration History, https://immigrationhistory.org/item/an-act-to-execute-certain-treaty-stipulations-relating-to-chinese-aka-the-chinese-exclusion-law/.

    ↩︎
  2. “Second Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Second-Sino-Japanese-War ↩︎

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.