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.
There are over 110 pages in Sarah Y. Lee’s case file. Besides the photos required on various immigration documents, the file includes a wedding portrait of Sarah and Stephen Y. Wong, their marriage announcement in a local newspaper, a copy of their marriage license, and an invitation to their wedding banquet.
1924 On July 22, 1924, Sarah Y. Lee, a citizen of Canada of Chinese race, age 25, height 5’2”, dark eyes, dark hair, entered the U.S. for a brief visit. She was required to obtain a $500 Liberty Bond guaranteeing that she would not become a public charge. Her Canadian form C.I. 10 stated that she was also known as Kim Yuck, a student, and born on 26 July 1899. Her last place of residence was 223 Moss Street, Victoria, B.C. She was the daughter of Lee Deen (Tom Deen), a Chinese contractor and farmer in Coquitlam, B.C. Sarah was planning on traveling in the U.S. and visiting her brother, a student at Marquette College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin then returning to Canada in about one month. Her father swore in an affidavit that he held securities worth at least $10,000 including gold and received revenue from real estate. He had sufficient means to support his daughter. A $500 bond was taken out to assure that Sarah, an alien, temporarily admitted to the U.S. would return before the required date.
Sarah Y. Lee Affidavit photo, 1924, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Wong Sarah Lee, Box 858, File 17031/587.
Sarah swore that she was not addicted to narcotic drugs and was not “engaged in buying, selling, dealing in or use of any such drug or ‘Dope.’” Sarah Y. Lee was admitted for three months to the U.S. at Seattle as a Section Six Traveler. She returned to Canada before the deadline in 1924. A certified copy of Sarah’s birth certificate was included in the file. She was born in Burnaby, New Westminster, B.C. Her parents were Lee Deen and Sim Shee.
1926 Sarah applied to visit the U.S. again in January 1926. She planned to travel and visit friends in San Francisco, Fresno, and Los Angeles and return to Victoria in six months. The examining inspector, Mr. Faris, knew Sarah’s father and that the family was friends with Mr. Lee Shek Yew, a Dominion Chinese Immigration Agent in Victoria. Faris believed that Lee would return when required so he didn’t think the bond was necessary. He approved her application. Her Canadian C.I. 10 form rated her father’s and brother’s financial worth at $60,000.
On 20 May 1926 the Immigration Commissioner, received a letter from Sarah Y. Lee saying she had married (6 February 1926) a Chinese merchant from Fresno, California a few months previously. She was now Mrs. S. Y. Wong and had started her paperwork to establish her permanent residence in the U.S. with the status of wife of a merchant. Immigration started an investigation to see if the man she had married was a merchant according to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
[Yikes – this probably added 80 pages to Sarah Y. Lee’s file. Sarah was admitted into the U.S. on 23 January for six months as a single temporary visitor. She married a little over two weeks later. One has to wonder if this was all pre-planned. The marriage license was taken out on 4 February. They had a formal wedding banquet the evening after the wedding.]
Sarah’s husband, Wong Tin Yuen (Stephen Y. Wong/Wong Yuen) who was born at Wong Lit village, Hoy Ping district, China, was interviewed by James P. Butler, Immigration Service in Fresno. Wong originally arrived in the U.S. in1910 with the status of the son of a merchant. His San Francisco file 12017/28119 was reviewed. Wong had applied for a return permit in 1925 and his permit was denied. Wong had two businesses. He worked at the Chinese Bazaar on Fulton Street for four or five hours a day. He was manager at San Sam Sing Company and worked there two or three hours a day. The San Sam Sing Company had never filed a partnership list with the county clerk or filed an income tax return. During the previous year, there had been no gambling or lottery business conducted in the store and no manual labor for the last year. Because he was involved in two businesses he needed two white witnesses for each business. Wong Lung (Wong Dock Tay), Stephen’s father, was interviewed. His testimony agreed with his son’s.
Mrs. Stephen Y. Wong (Sarah Y. Lee) was interviewed by Immigration Services on 12 July 1926. She said she had no intension of staying in the U.S. when she left Canada in January. She was not engaged to get married at that time. She was visiting Mr. and Mrs. Cuyler Wong and Mr. and Mrs. J. J. Vogel in Fresno. Sarah said she had known her husband since 1924. They met in San Francisco during her earlier trip.
On 20 July 1926, Sarah Y. Lee’s attorney wrote to Luther Weedin, Commissioner of Immigration in Seattle and included an application for Sarah Y. Lee to stay in the U.S. as the wife of a merchant. The attorney mentioned that Sarah came from a highly respected family and her father and brother had a substantial financial standing. She married Wong Tin Yuen (Stephen Y. Wong) in Fresno on 6 February 1926. He enclosed a copy of the marriage license, a copy of invitation to the wedding banquet, a newspaper announcement, and a photo of the bride and groom.
Stephen Y. Wong and Sarah Y. Lee, Wedding Portrait, 6 February 1926, Fresno, California
[It gets complicated.]
Sarah needed to change her status from section six traveler to that of a wife of a merchant. This resulted in mounds of paperwork. In September G. E. Tolman, Assistant Commissioner General of the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, DC denied Mrs. S. Y. Wong (Sarah Y. Lee)’s application to change her status and said that she could not remain in the U.S. He suggested that she return to Canada and from there apply for admission to the U.S. as wife of a merchant. She should notify immigration services that she was leaving the U.S., obtain an affidavit showing that her husband was a merchant in Fresno, attach photos herself and her husband, take it to the American Consul near her home in Fresno to secure a visa, then apply for admission to the U.S. She needed to show that her husband had been a merchant for at least one year prior to her arrival.
1927 In January 1927, Mrs. Sarah Y. Wong wrote to the Seattle immigration office explaining that she had not followed through on changing her status because she has been unable to travel for health reasons. In February, the clerk at immigration services asked Mrs. Wong if she was “an expectant mother,” and when did she planned on returning to Canada. Mrs. Wong said her child was due in March and she would probably leave in May or June. She insisted that she was under a doctor’s care and could not travel. Immigration decided to let her stay until 1 June 1927. In April, Mrs. Wong asked if she could stay until August. She was again told in great detail what she must do when applying for her readmittance to the U.S. Sarah needed an affidavit showing proof that her husband was a merchant, and they were legally married.
In July, Stephen testified that his son, Eugene Wong (Wong You Jin) was born 6 February 1927 in Fresno. His white witnesses were Frank Ennis, an advertising agent; and Leo F. Jarvis, an insurance broker. Their testimony agreed with Stephen’s. Stephen’s business information was updated and showed that both businesses were successful and providing an income. Stephen Y. Wong receives a favorable recommendation for merchant status. They family left for Canada on 9 September 1927.
Stephen Y. Wong and Sarah Lee Wong Affidavit photo, 1927, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Wong Sarah Lee, File 17031/587.
Mrs. Sarah Wong filed her Canadian form 257, Declaration of Non-Immigrant Alien about to Depart for the United States, with the American Consular Service and received her passport visa. In her interrogation she said her father Lee Deen, died on 29 June 1927 and her mother, Lee Shim Shee, died in January 1925, both in Coquitlam, B.C. She listed her siblings as Thomas Lee, age about 43, was living in Port Hammond, B.C.; William, age 20 or 21; Gordon Lee, age 10 or 11, living in Canton, China; oldest sister, Mrs. G. T. Lang, Cardston, Alberta; Anna Lee, 16, student, Port Hammond; Arthur Lee,14, student, Shanghai; Lorraine, 9, student, Canton City. Sarah Lee Wong and family arrived at the Port of Seattle on 19 September 1927. The next day they were admitted and Sarah received her Certificate of Identity #58369.
1935 In June 1935, Stephen Y. Wong swore in an affidavit that he was the husband of Sarah Lee Wong and the owner of Chinese Bazaar in Fresno, CA. His photo was attached to the form. In his interview with immigration Stephen said that he and his wife Sarah Wong were applying to visit Canada and taking their eight-year-old son, Eugene, and two-year old daughter, Maylene with them. Their son, Avery, born in 1929, died in 1931.
Immigration Agent Butler’s summary of the Wong family’s applications says that Stephen Y. Wong’s business, Chinese Bazaar, which dealt with Oriental art goods and novelties, had steadily grown since 1925, his white witnesses were fully qualified, and he was the sole owner of the businesses. Stephen and Sarah Wong both received endorsements. The family visited Canda and return in September 1935.
1940 Stephen Y. Wong applied to leave the U.S. for a visit to Canada in 1940. His white witness was Miss Jo Fitzpatrick, a bookkeeper for Dr. Max M. Goldstein and for the Merchants Credit Association. She had purchased art at the Wong business, the Chinese Bazaar, and known the Wong family about ten years. Frank Ennis was a witness for Wong again. Stephen and Sarah Wong and their children, Maylene, age seven, and Shannon, age three, were interviewed. Stephen was asked the same questions as he had for previous trips and he gave the same answers with some updates. His sales were about $7,500 in 1939 with a profit of $1,200. Their sons Eugene and Avery died in 1936 and 1931, respectively.
Seven-year-old Maylene was interviewed and pointed to her mother when asked. When shown a photograph of a man, she identified him as “my daddy, Stephen.” She also identified her two-year-old brother, Shannon, who was deemed too young to be questioned. Certified copies of the children’s birth certificates were reviewed and approved. Stephen and Sarah’s photos are attached to their affidavit.
On 22 August 1940, Sarah applied for a Nonimmigrant Visa at the American Foreign Service at Vancouver, B.C. and was granted a passport visa under section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act of 1924, wife of merchant (Chinese) resident in United States in exempt status. Her photograph was attached to the document.
The Wong family returned to the Port of Seattle on 25 August 1940 and were admitted. All four applied for certificates of identity. They were approved and sent to the San Francisco immigration office about a week after their arrival at Seattle. The family made another trip to Canada in August 1944. The reference sheet included in the file contains the name and file numbers for Sarah Lee Wong’s husband, brother, two sons and daughter. Their photos are probably included in their files.
Thank you to Joyce Liu, CEA Indexing Project volunteer, for telling me about this 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 on 3 June 1919, then 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.
The Bureau of Immigration does not issue passports. The State Department requires proper requests.
Return certificates have not been requested for investigation.
Requests for pre-investigation of status have not been received.
The Bureau has not received birth information on Lee Ah Jung’s wife or children.
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, instead of signing his own name 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.]
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.
“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.
“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.]
“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.
“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 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 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.
“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.
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”1is 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]
Alice Elinor, “Chinese Wife of American is Held Here” Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle, WA, p3. ↩︎
Elsie Chung Lyon, 16 Dec 1963, Texas Department of State Health Services; Austin Texas, USA; Texas Death Certificates, 1903–1982, Ancestry.com ↩︎
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, 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.
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.”
