Tag Archives: China

Ng Ah Yun – Port Townsend, Washington

Affidavit, Shaving Feast, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ng Ah Yun was born in Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington on 23 August 1889.  He was the son of (Ng) Yee Kong and Wong Shee. Yee Kong had come to the United States from China about 1877 and married Wong Shee in San Francisco in 1882. Shortly after they married, they moved to Port Townsend, Washington and resided at the corner of Madison and Water Streets. Their first son, Ah Don Ng, was born there in 1885 or 1886.

Yee Kong operated the Yee Wah Laundry. Its original location was across the corner from the sailors’ boarding house. In December 1888, Yee Kong’s cousin, Charley Quong, who was born in California, joined them in Port Townsend. Charley’s father and Yee Kong’s father were brothers. About 1890 the laundry burned down, and the building was replaced. Eventually that building also burned and the  family moved over to the King Tai Company building. About 1892, discouraged after twice losing their business, Yee Kong, his wife, and their two sons moved back to China.

In June 1907 the two brothers, (Ng) Ah Don and (Ng) Ah Yun, returned to Port Townsend on the Ex. S. S. Shawmut and applied to be admitted to the United  States  as U.S. citizens. Over a ten- day  period  they  were  interrogated and eventually admitted.

Ah Yun and Ah Don affidavit photos, 1907, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ng Ah Yun case file, Seattle Box 621, file 7030/6363.

The file does not indicate where they stayed those ten days. The Port Townsend U.S. Customs House may have made some arrangements for them. Charley Quong, another Chinese man, and two Caucasian witnesses swore in affidavits about their knowledge of the brothers. They were shown photographs and asked to identify each one. Frank A. Bartlett said he had been a resident of Port Townsend for more than forty- two years. He was a member of C. C. Bartlett & Company,  his father ’s general merchandise store, and sold laundry supplies to Yee Kong. C. C. Bartlett also rented a lot and a building to Yee Kong. After the building burned down, Yee Kong rented the land from Bartlett and built a two-story frame building for his laundry business. The  Bartletts had a good working relationship with Yee Kong, and they both remembered seeing his young sons playing around the laundry.

Joseph Steiner also swore in an affidavit that he was acquainted with Yee Kong. Steiner owned a cigar store and had been a resident of Port Townsend since February 1888. Steiner patronized the Yee Wah Laundry, and Yee Kong brought his sons with him to the cigar store when he came to collect Steiner’s laundry fees and visit with him.

In Eng Yee Tung’s affidavit he testified that he was forty-four years old and was born in Pen On,  Har Pang County, Sunning district, Province of Canton, China. He was the manager of the Yee Sing Wook Kee Company in Port Townsend. Around 1885 there were about one hundred Chinese in Port Townsend. Eng Yee Tung testified that he and about thirty or forty other Chinese attended a “shaving feast” to celebrate the birth of each of Yee Kong’s sons. This was a Chinese ritual  in which a barber would  shave off all but a small tuft of hair on the front of a male baby’s head about a month after the  birth, then family and friends would gather to celebrate.[1]

Ah  Don, age 21, was interviewed on 13 June 1907. Even though he was only five or six years old when he left Port Townsend for China, he was asked many of the same questions asked of the other adults. He testified that his uncle, Charley Quong, whose Chinese name was Bing Quong, lived next door to his father ’s house in China and that Charley’s father was Jet Hock, the brother of Hen Hock. In the interview Ah Don described his house—it had had two sleeping rooms, two kitchens and a worship room. He stated that his mother had a brother named Wong Sai Chuck, a farmer in China. The interviewer then gave Ah Don a genealogy lesson. He explained that Charley and Ah Don’s fathers were first cousins; therefore, Charley could not be his uncle. When asked if he had any first  cousins, Ah  Don responded: “Under the Chinese custom I call Bing Quong my uncle, but according to the American custom he is my cousin,  but not my first cousin.” (He had learned his genealogy lesson and how to deal with interviewers.)  He had no other cousins. His father had given him about $1,000 to come to the United States.

Ah Yun, age 18, was interviewed  the next day; ten days after the brothers had arrived  in Port Townsend. He was only three or four years old when he left the U.S. for China. He told the interviewer that the family name was Ng, although it was not always used. When Ah Yun called Charley Kong (Quong) his uncle, Mr. Monroe, the interviewer, gave him the same genealogy lecture he had given his brother. Ah Yun gave the same answers to the interview questions as his brother  had. As one would expect, they both correctly identified the photographs of each other and of Charley Quong.

On 14 June 1907, the Acting Chinese Inspector in Charge interviewed Charley Quong about Ah Yun and Ah  Don. An  interpreter  was present. Quite a bit of genealogical information  was obtained in that  interview.  Charley  Quong/ Bing Quong was by this time thirty-five years old and was working in a saloon in Port Townsend  that was owned by Henry Rothschild. Quong was born in San Francisco, the son of Hen Hock and Chin Shee, the former being the son of Mon Fee. Hen Hock was born in China and his mother in San Francisco. His father died in Fresco, California about 1900, but his mother was still living  there. His four sisters and three brothers were all born in the United States and were living in Fresno.

Charley Quong had married in San Francisco. Quong had made two  trips to China, once in 1895 and again in 1901. He had registered each time before he left the country. The interviewer asked him why he had registered, since he was born in the United States. He replied, “Because every Chinaman was registering, and I thought I would  do the same.” [It was odd that the interviewer asked Quong why he  had registered, because in 1892 the Geary Act was passed, which expanded the 1882 exclusion act. It  now  required  all Chinese to register and obtain a certificate of identity as proof of their right  to be in  the United  States  and to safely return when they left the country.]

The interviewer asked Quong many questions about his family in China. Charley Quong and his cousin Yee Kong had lived in the village of Song Cheong, sometimes called Song Clen, Song Lung or Song Leung. There were only two houses in the village and they each owned one of them. Quong lived there with his wife, his stepmother (his father ’s first wife), and his two sons.

Caucasians were  considered more  credible witnesses than Chinese, so it was important  for returning  Chinese to have white witnesses who could swear that they were respectable citizens. Even though information  on Caucasians in the files is incidental and rarely indexed, there are sometimes tidbits  of information  about people who had  working relationships with Chinese. Sometimes a witness might tell where they were living  in the 1890s when no census records were available. Unfortunately,  it is extremely difficult to find this information.[2]

Three months after Frank A. Bartlett and Joseph Steiner gave sworn statements about their knowledge of Ah Don and Ah Yun, the affiants gave witness testimony. Mr. Monroe asked Steiner how long he had lived in Port Townsend and Steiner replied that it had been a little over twenty  years. Monroe  came back with,  “How much over twenty years?” Steiner replied that it had  been twenty  years in  February.  [Monroe was getting testy. He may have been feeling that he was wasting his time trying  to disprove that the brothers were U. S. citizens.]

Steiner was asked to give the names of any Chinese that he remembered. He named six Chinese. He said he had never been to Yee Kong’s laundry  because Yee Kong always called for it and delivered  it back to him when done.

When Yee Kong’s former  landlord, Frank A. Bartlett, was interviewed, he reported his occupation as both bookkeeper and merchant. He recounted that Yee Kong had paid various rents to him for his laundry–starting out at $15 a month,  then $25 and finally $100, the latter being paid during  boom  times  in  Port Townsend. The first laundry  was in a one-story building that was about twenty feet wide by 30 feet long.  According to Bartlett, that building burned down about 1886. Bartlett  then leased the land to Yee Kong for $100 a month and Yee Kong built  a new laundry. He was there about five or six years until that building  also burned down. [The dates were not always consistent from  one person to another, but  that  did  not seem to matter to the interviewer.]

After  considering  the evidence, Henry  A. Monroe decided that Ah Don and Ah Yun were  born in the United States. They were admitted to the country  as returning  native-born Chinese persons.

“Ah Yun, photo, Form 430,” 1913, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, #7030/6363.

To be continued in October 2022 blog post.

[1] “Chinese Customs: Interesting Rites are Connected with Birth—Vary According to Province,”  The Burlington Free Press and Times, Burlington, New Jersey, 4 March 1920, p.8; accessed Chroniclingamerica.loc.gov,  22 August 2022.

[2]Waverly B. Lowell, compiler, Chinese Immigration  and Chinese in the United States: Records in the Regional Archives of the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, Reference Information paper 99, 1996, 1. 

This case study was originally published in the Seattle Genealogical Society Bulletin. The citation for the complete article is: Trish Hackett Nicola, CG, “Chinese and the Northwest,” SGS (Seattle) Bulletin, 64-1 (Winter 2014) 39-47.

Dorothy S. Luke Lee – born in Seattle

Actor, Birth Certificate, Cerificate of identity number, merchant, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Dorothy S. Luke Lee, 1912 Certified copy of 1910 Birth Certificate,” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Dorothy S. Luke Dee (Mrs. Kaye Hong), Box 770, File #7030/11435.

Dorothy S. Luke Lee, daughter of Luke Lee and Down Cook, was born on 15 March 1910 in Seattle, Washington. She went to China with her family in 1912 and returned a year later.

When Dorothy and her family applied to go to China in 1912, Doctor Cora Smith (Eaton) King was a witness for the family. Dr. King, the family’s physician for the past five years, testified that Dorothy’s father, Luke Lee, was a merchant in Seattle. She knew that at least three of their children were born in the U.S. She was present at the birth of the two youngest, Dorothy and Edwin S. Luke Lee, and she assisted in obtaining a certified copy of the birth certificate of Eugene Luke Lee, who was also born in the U.S.

In 1912, Dorothy’s mother, Down Cook (Mrs. Luke Lee), testified that she was 30 years old, and born in Quong Chaw village, Sunning district, China. She came to the U.S. in July 1907 through Sumas, Washington. At that time her husband was a merchant and member of Sing Fork & Company in New Haven, Connecticut. Their son, Luke Thick Kaye, (Dorothy’s older brother) born in Yen On village, Sunning district, China, came with them.  

Luke Thick Kaye testified in 1912 that he was seven years old. He had been going to school for three years. His teacher at the Main Street school in Seattle was Miss Sadie E. Smith, and his present teacher at Colman School was Miss Rock.

Dorothy S. Luke Lee Certificate of Identity Application 9975 

Dorothy S. Luke Lee, age 3, received Certificate of Identity #9975 as a returning citizen in 1913.

 

“Mrs Kaye Hong, Form 430 photo,” 1938

On 13 September 1938 Mrs. Kaye Hong, (Dorothy S. Luke Lee), age 28, applied to leave the U.S. from the Port of Seattle. She listed her address as 725 Pine Street, San Francisco, California.  She testified that she married Kaye Hong (Hong Won Kee Kaye) on 7 September 1936.

Dorothy, her husband, and some of his family were making a short trip to Canada.  They returned the next day through Blaine, Washington and were admitted.

Additional information not in the file:
Keye Luke attended the University of Washington in Seattle and was an artist/illustrator before becoming an actor for films and television. He got his movie start playing Charlie Chan’s Number One Son, Lee Chan.

Information about Keye Luke’s art career:
“Mary Mallory; Hollywood Heights – Keye Luke,” The Daily Mirror, 20 June 2022;

More about Keye Luke’s acting career:
Vienna’s Classic Hollywood, Keye Luke: Actor, Artist

Chinese American Eyes blog has 19 posts on Keye Luke covering his art and acting careers. 

Keye Luke Biography, Posted 12 Jan 2021 by lindaje2000:

Edwin Luke, Keye Luke’s younger brother, was also an actor. See this short biography of Edwin Luke

FYI: The CEA volunteers are still not back at NARA-Seattle but when we were all working together Rhonda Farrar called my attention to this file. Thank you, Rhonda!

Leung Man Hoi – Section 6 Merchant Certificate from Swatow

Application for return certificate as merchant, Certificate of Identity, Medical Card, Section 6 Merchant, Swatow Certificate, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leung Man Hoi arrived in the Port of Seattle on 15 May 1915. He passed his medical exam. He did not have hookworm or trachoma.

Leung Man Hoi (Yum Gong), Medical Examination, 1915, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Leung Man Hoi (Yum Gong), box RS193, # RS29097

He was interviewed by Immigration Inspector Henry A. Monroe. He testified that his marriage name was (Leung) Yum Gong, he was 30 years old, and born on 10 March 1886 in Kai Gock village, Moy Yuen District, China. He was married to Chin She and they had two sons, Sik Chee, age 6; and Sik Yuen, age 2. Leung was in the rice and wine business at Bo San Wo Co., Chung Sar Market, China. He had a friend, Wong Shu Tong, who was living at the King Chong Lung Co. Leung Man Hoi was admitted to Seattle on his day of arrival as a Section 6 Merchant and received his certificate of identity #20276. His destination was the King Chong Lung Company, 217 Washington Street, Seattle.

When questioned by Inspector Henry A. Monroe, Leung Man Hoi said that he was examined in China by a consular representative at Swatow. Leung did not know the interviewer’s name, but he said he answered his many questions truthfully. Leung did not have any relatives in the U.S., only a friend, Wong Shu Tong, who he had not seen in ten years. Wong worked for the King Cheng Lung Company. Leung only had $10 in cash with him and a bank draft for $1,000 in gold drawn on Wah Young Company issued in Hong Kong.  Inspector Monroe concluded that it was not a bank draft but only an order for the Wah Young Company to extend credit to Leung.

Leung, Section 6 Certificate for Merchant, Swatow, 1914, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, #RS29097

Inspector Monroe asked Leung if he knew Chin Tan in China. Chin solicited men of means to secure Section 6 certificates so they could enter the United States [illegally]. Leung denied knowing Chin Tan. At the conclusion of the interrogation Monroe reminded Leung that under no circumstances could he work as a laborer, or he would be subject to arrest and deportation.

Leung Man Hoi applied to leave the U.S. in May 1920 from San Francisco. He filed his application for a return certificate as a merchant and it was approved on 12 June 1920 by the commissioner at Angel Island Station in San Francisco, California, but with some reservations. This is an excerpt from a letter to Immigration in San Francisco from the Seattle immigration office on May 28, 1920:

              “Please note that Leung Man Hoi is a so-called Swatow Section 6
                merchant. A couple of years ago this office established to the
                satisfaction of the Department at Washington and the U.S. Court here,
                on Writ of Habeas Corpus, that all Swatow cases were fraudulent, and
                the last twenty-two from that place holding papers were returned to
                China, after Judge Neterer of the District Court here had discharged
               a Writ of Habeas Corpus obtained in their behalf. Since that time
               no Chinese holding Swatow certificates have applied at this port for
               admission. Testimony of the applicant given May 15, 1915, in interest-
                ing reading, in view of the subsequent developments in Swatow cases.”

In spite of the letter from the Seattle office about their doubts of the validity of Section 6 merchant certificates issued in Swatow, Leung Man Hoi’s papers were approved.

If someone wants a project on the Chinese Exclusion Act case files, it would be interesting to find the files or the court cases on a 22 Chinese with Swatow papers who were returned to China.
The CEA volunteers are still not back at NARA-Seattle but when we were all working together Rhonda Farrar called my attention to this file. Thank you Rhonda!

Loui See Fung joins father in Alamosa, Colorado in 1941

Certificate of Identity, Description of house, Photographs, San Francisco file, son of citizen, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Loui See Fung  雷樹宏 arrived at the Port of Seattle on the s.s.Princess Marguerite on 11 January 1941. He was classified as the son of citizen, Loui Guee (Louie Gwee) (married name: Woon Jing). He was admitted exactly one month later and received his Certificate of Identity on 14 February. His destination was El Paso, Texas. He was nineteen years old, born on 20 September 1921 at Ai Lat Village, Hoy San District, China. According to Dr. Seth, the Medical Examiner of Aliens, the applicant appeared to be younger than he claimed. X-rays might give a more accurate assessment, but the immigration board decides that it was not necessary. The father presented a photo of the applicant when he was about five years old. There was a strong resemblance between the alleged father and the applicant.

“Loui See Fung, photo,” ca. 1926, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Loui See Fung case file, Seattle Box 823, file 7030/13488.

Loui See Fung’s father, Loui Guee, originally arrived in the United States in October 1913 and was admitted as the son of a native, Loui Yim, who was subject to San Francisco file 10346/1433.

In Loui See Fung’s interrogation he testified that he spoke the See Yip Hoy San dialect and had never been in the United States before. His family moved to Ping On village when he was four or five years old. He last saw his father when he was about eight years old, but he readily identified him from a photograph because he remembered that his father had a scar on his forehead which showed in the photo. The interrogator asked many questions about his father’s extended family. Loui See Fung answered most of the questions correctly and was asked if he had been coached with the answers.
It was a long interrogation with over five pages of testimony. He described his mother as Yee Shee, natural feet, some pock marks on her face, able to read and write, mother of four sons and no daughters. He told the names and ages of his brothers and where they went to school. He described his village and the nearby villages, the streams, a fishpond, markets, and school. Loui See Fung lived in a brick house with two bedrooms, a living room, two kitchens with a room over each kitchen, cement floors in all the rooms, all closed by glass and iron bars, no shutters, and two outside doors. They had a black dog but no pig. He was asked about specific houses in his village—”who lives opposite your door in the 3rd house, 2nd row?” and the names of the occupants, their ages, occupations, children’s names and ages, and where they went to school.

There was a lengthy interview of Loui’s father, Loui Guee.  He stated that for the last ten years, he was a partner in a restaurant at Alamosa, Colorado. He was asked how he could identify his son if he had not seen him in about eleven years. He said, “I recognize him because he is my son. The photograph looks like him.” He chose the correct photo of his son out from more than ten photos. He testified that he had two brothers, Loui Fee in Oxnard, California, and Loui Wing in Ogden, Utah. He gave additional details about the family home. It had a stone court, a shrine on the second floor, and a balcony with a wood floor over each first-floor bedroom. They had three ancestral tablets.

“Louie Guee Affidavit, King County, Wash.,” 4 Sept 1940, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Loui See Fung case file, file 7030/13488.

Most of the testimony of the father and son agreed completely. Although Loui See Fung said his destination was El Paso, Texas, and his father lived in Alamosa, Colorado; the interrogator ignored this inconsistency. The other differences were minor. The doctor testified that the applicant appears to be younger than his stated age, but it was not enough to reject the applicant. Loui See Fung was admitted and received his Certificate of Identity.

Woo Quin Lock – rejected/appealed/admitted

Affidavit, burial ceremony,, Certificate of Identity, dual marriage, family photo, Letters of recommendation, marriage custom, San Francisco file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before March 2020. thn]

Woo Quin Lock was born on 3 March 1920 at Kwong Tung, China. He was the son of a U.S. citizen. He arrived at the Port of Seattle on 2 February 1940 on the Princess Charlotte. He was denied admittance on 12 April 1940. His case was appealed on 10 May, and he was admitted on 10 August, more than eight months after his arrival. He received his Certificate of Identity No. 83265 two days later. The exhibits submitted in his case were an affidavit by his father, Woo Yen Tong, three letters written by the applicant to his father and their translations, a sample of the applicant’s handwriting, four Woo Seattle case files and eight San Francisco files for various Woos.

Woo Quin Lock’s father, Woo Yen Tong, swore in an affidavit that he was a United States citizen and that he had proved his citizenship to the Immigration Service after his arrival at the Port of San Francisco on 14 August 1911 and was issued a Certificate of Identity No. 4752. Three photos were attached to his affidavit.

Woo Quin Kwock, Woo Quin Lock, probably Woo Koon Sang
Son: Woo Quin Lock; Father: Woo Yen Tong

“Woo Yen Tong, affidavit,” 1939, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Woo Quin Lock case file, Seattle Box 805, file 7030/12841.

During his 1940 testimony, Woo Quin Lock testified that his father sent him $1,200 in Hong Kong currency to cover his travel expenses. Chin Thick Gee a member of the Mow Fon Goon store in Hong Kong, purchased his ticket for him. His father owned two houses and a social hall in Wan Jew village. Overnight visitors stayed in the social hall which was the 8th house, 9th row, counting from the north. Gar Theung and Gar Thin, sons of his paternal uncle Get Tong were living in the building while they were guests of the family in 1938. The family owned an old house on the north side and a new house on the south side. The interrogator told Woo Quin Lock that his testimony about some of his uncles and cousins and the location of the houses did not agree with his father’s and brother’s testimony.

The case file contains more than sixty pages of documents and testimony. The following is an excerpt from the summary written by the Immigration Committee Chairman:

The alleged father, Woo Yen Tong, was originally admitted at San Francisco in 1909 as the foreign-born son of a native, Woo Gap.

Woo Yen Tong returned to China in 1919. He married Chen Shee and their son; Woo Quin Lock was born before he returned to the United States. He made several trips to China and four sons were born. Woo Quin Lock’s younger brother, Woo Quin Kwock arrived from China in 1939 and was admitted. He was a witness for Woo Quin Lock.

There were many discrepancies between the testimony of the applicant and his brother about their method and date of travel to Hong Kong, where they stayed on the way, and when they got there. The brothers did not agree on when and where their alleged younger brother attended school.

The interrogation committee decided that the relationship between Woo Quin Lock and his father and brother could not be established. They denied Lock admission to the United States, but he had the right to appeal. The case was reopened in April 1940 to reconsider the citizenship of the alleged father. Woo Yen Tong’s brother was called to testify. Woo Fong Tong (marriage name Sik Kew) presented his Certificate of Identity #10738 which was issued to him in San Francisco in 1913. He testified that he was forty-four, born (ca. 1894) in Wan Jew village, Toy San district, China. He was a laborer living in the Chicago Hotel in Spokane, Washington. He made two trips to China in 1921 and 1929 and returned through the port of San Francisco. He identified the photos that were attached to Fook Yen Tong’s affidavit and a photo of their father, Woo Gap, from his 1921 Certificate of Identify that was included in his San Francisco file. He correctly identified all the Woo photos from the Seattle and San Francisco files.

Woo Fong Tong described the burial ceremony for his father Woo Gap (the transcriber made a note that Gap was pronounced NGIP). Woo Gap died in 1929 and Woo Fong Tong took his remains, his whole body, not just his bones, back to China in a regular wooden casket which was placed in a wooden box lined with tin. After their arrival in Wan Jew village the shipping box was removed, and the casket was placed outside the village for a day for visitation by the family. Then the casket was opened briefly to give everyone one last look at the body. They had a regular burial procession with the whole family accompanying the casket to the burial place at Fong Ngow hill, about 2 lis (less than a mile) north of Wan Jew village. After Woo Gap was buried, the family worshipped at his grave.

Woo Gap was married three times and his father was married twice. There was much testimony in the case file about whether the Woo men were stepsons or half-brothers.

In May 1940, P. J. Hansen, wrote a reference letter for Woo Yen Tong, who he called Raymond Woo. Hansen stated that Woo had worked for him for nine years as cannery foreman and he considered him a conscientious and trustworthy employee. He offered his assistance in getting Woo’s son admitted to the United States.

The legal brief for the appeal on behalf of Woo Quin Lock conceded that Woo Quin Lock was a foreign-born son of Woo Yen Tong but left open the question of his father’s citizenship of the United States.  Woo Yen Tong derived his citizenship through his father, Woo Gap. Woo Gap and his second wife Lee Shee were the parents of Woo Yen Tong. Woo Gap married Lee Shee before the death of his first wife which was legal under Chinese law and custom. Woo Gap’s first wife, Chow Shee, the mother of his four sons, was ill for many years and required constant care. Woo Gap’s second wife moved into the household and cared for Chow Shee and the children. Woo Yen Ton was the son of Woo Gap and Woo’s second wife, Lee Shee. He was born before Woo’s first wife died.

Woo Quin Lock’s attorney, Edward E. Merges, brought forward a May 1918 letter written by Philip B. Jones, Immigration Officer at San Francisco to the Commissioner of Immigration at Angel Island stating the merits Woo Gap’s status as a merchant (one of the exemptions to the Exclusion Act). Woo Gap was born in the United States, a merchant in Santa Cruz, California, and well-known by the community and the immigration station. He resided with his wife and their son Woo Yen Tong. They provided a home and schooling for their son which Immigration authorities thought was sufficient proof of their relationship. They were also impressed that Woo Gap was honest about his dual marriage. Woo Yen Tong’s case was submitted to the Central Immigration Office in Washington, D.C. and it was determined that Woo Gap was a citizen of the United States. His son, Woo Yen Tong, had been admitted as the son of a citizen.  Finally, after an eight-month legal battle, Woo Quin Lock was admitted as the son a citizen on 20 August 1940. His new residence was 725 King Street, Seattle, Washington.

Suey L. Moy – born in Indiana, resident of Chicago, Illinois

Affidavits, Birth Certificate, Form 430, Group Photo, Interrogation, photos, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before March 2020. thn]

In October 1900, Dr. E. R. Bacon, a practicing physician and surgeon in Lovell, Lane County, Indiana, swore that he knew B. Harley Moy and his wife Agnes T. Moy, and that he delivered their baby son, Suey L. Moy, on 8 September 1898.

B. Harley Moy swore in an affidavit that he was born in China and had lived in the United States for over fifteen years. After arriving in the U.S., he lived with his father in San Francisco, California, for a short time, then moved to Chicago, Illinois, for ten years where he attended school. He travelled around and visited New York City before settling in Lovell, Indiana, where he ran a Chinese bazaar or emporium which he called Harley Moy’s. He married Agnes. F. Anderson, of Chicago, in 1896. In 1900 he was applying to visit China with his young son.

Daniel Lynch, the postmaster of Lowell, and Frank E. Nelson, a cashier at the State Bank of Lowell, both swore in an affidavit that B. Harley Moy had been a resident of Lowell for over two years and was employed in the mercantile business; he was well known by the local residents and that he had a wife and son. A 1900 certified transcript of Suey L. Moy’s 1898 birth certificate is included in his file.

In 1912 Suey L. Moy, age fourteen, wanted to return to the United States. His mother, Agnes T. (Anderson) Moy, started the process to get him readmitted. She swore in an affidavit that she was born in Sweden, immigrated in 1893, and was now a resident of Chicago. During her 1913 interview, Agnes stated that her husband, Harley, owned a restaurant called Ningpo and they lived in an apartment above it. They had four children, Suey who was in Gow Lee, On Fun, China with his paternal grandparents, and a daughter, Helen Moy, born in 1901; and two sons, Boyd Moy (Suey Tang Moy), born in 1905, and Frank Moy (Suey Wing Moy), born in 1907. The three younger children had not been out of the U.S.

“Suey L. Moy photo” 1900, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Suey L. Moy case file, Seattle Box 1392, file 41410/14-30.
“Moy family photo” 1900, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Suey L. Moy case file 41410/14-30.
“Suey L. Moy form 430 photo” 1912, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Suey L. Moy case file, 41410/14-30.

Included in the 1912 application was a photo taken about 1900 of Suey L. Moy at about age one and a group photo of Agnes and her three younger children.

During B. Harley Moy’s interrogation, he testified that the initial “B” in his name stood for Billy, his American nickname. He was forty-two years old and married in 1897. His brother, Moy Dung Goon, was living in Chicago. His family home in China had a big door and a little door. Moy Dung Gee lived across from the little door. [The interrogators often asked the applicant details about the big door and the little door, probably so they could see if the interviewee would give the same answer during their return trip interview.]

Harley and Agnes gave slightly different answers about the date and place of their marriage, however it was close enough for the interrogators to approve Suey L. Moy’s application. But first, as part of the application investigation, the Seattle Immigration Service wrote to Immigration office in Vancouver, B.C. asking if they had any information on the 1900 departure of B. Harley Moy and his son leaving through Portal, North Dakota. Although they could not find the departure information, the Vancouver office thought the evidence of his U.S. citizenship was enough to admit him when he returned in 1913.

In February 1922, Suey L. Moy applied for another trip to China. During his interview he said his father was born in San Francisco. [According to the earlier testimony Suey L. Moy’s grandfather was born in San Francisco and his father was born in China] His parents, B. Harley and Agnes Moy divorced about 1921. Suey L. Moy presented a certified copy of his birth certificate.

“Suey L. Moy 1898 birth certificate, No. 4847” 1922, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Suey L. Moy case file 41410/14-30.

Suey L. Moy returned on 28 May 1923. He reported that he married Lai Shee while in China and they had a son, Moy Jun Wing. He was admitted.

Ng Wing Yin – unable to prove he was the son of a U.S. citizen; deported

Affidavit, Certificate of Identity, Deportation, family photo, student, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before the closure in March 2020. I will let you know when the archives reopens. THN]

Ng Wing Yin arrived at the Port of Seattle on 28 January 1929 was deported after almost two months in detention. He could not prove his relationship to his alleged father, Ng Wah Lai, a U.S. citizen.

His attorney, Hugh C. Todd, wrote to the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, D.C. regarding Ng’s appeal. Ng Wing Yin was first denied admission in January 1927. His 1929 entry was his second attempt to enter the U.S. Todd argued that no one except a father would try to bring his son into the country twice. Anyone else would have given up. This application included a photo taken in 1921 of the father and son when the son was ten years old. Todd pointed out the resemblance between the two—their posture, eyes, nose, ears and chin, even the curl of the mouth. The photograph was not included in the 1927 earlier entry application.  

“Ng Wing Yin and Ng Wah Lai photo” 1921 , Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ng Wing Yin case file, Seattle Box 1118, file 10346/10-12.

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before the closure in March 2020. I will let you know when the archives reopens. THN]

In 1929 Ng Wing Yin was seventeen years old and a student. He was born in Woy Lung Lee village, Sun Wei Ning District, China. He was attempting to enter the U.S. as the son of a native. His parents were Ng Wah Lai (marriage name Yuk Moon), and Mar Shee.  He presented an affidavit with a photo of him with  his father stating that his father was a United States citizen.

Ng Wing Yin was questioned about the first time he tried to enter the U.S. in 1926. He was denied, it was appealed, denied again, and he was deported. He was asked why he was trying to enter again since he was debarred the first time.  He did not reply. His only witness was his father.

Ng Wah Lai testified that he was born in Riverside, California and that he had lived in Durango, Colorado for four years and planned to go back there. He was currently working at the Kwong Man Yuen store at 701 King Street in Seattle. He showed his certificate of identity #4188 issued at Boston, Massachusetts in 1911. The only proof he had that Ng Wing Yin was his son was the photo of them together. The immigration authorities agreed that the people in the photo were Ng Wah Lai and Ng Wing Yin but that did not prove their relationship. They had no new witnesses or evidence except for the photo taken of them together in 1921. They asked Ng Wah Lai why he was going through this process again when nothing had changed. Ng said, “He is my son and is anxious to come to the U.S.”

Ng Wing Yin was unable to prove that he was the blood son of Ng Wah Lai so he was denied entry into the U.S. Their attorney appealed, it was denied, and Ng Wing Yin was deported, again.

[What do you think? Would you have admitted him?]

Gee Moon Jew, farmer on Vashon Island, Washington

Affidavit, Photographs, reference sheet, San Francisco file, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before the closure in March 2020. I will let you know when the archives reopens. THN]

“Gee Moon Jew, Certificate of Identity” 1930, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Gee Moon Jew case file, Seattle Box 441, file 7030/1001.

Gee Moon Jew 朱文周 was 35 when he applied for a return certificate to allow him to make a trip to China. He was a poultry farmer in Vashon, Washington. He was born about 1897 in Hong How village, Sunning District, China. He came to the U.S. in 1909, at the age of 14, arriving in San Francisco. He was considered a U.S. citizen, the son of a native. His father, Gee Fee Yee, marriage name You Ming, was born in San Francisco. His mother was in China. He had three brothers and one younger sister. His older brother, Gee Moon Bin [sic] and his younger brother Gee Moon Taw, were both living in California. Gee Moon Jew married a Caucasian woman, Charlotte Irene Rogers in Vancouver, Washington in November 1918.  After marrying he took the name George W. Jenn.  George and Charlotte had six children; Mary Frances, born 1919; George Walton, born 1921; Alice Martha, born 1923; William Lawrence, born 1925; Eugene, also called Wee Jee, born 1927; and Helen Elizabeth Jenn, born 1927. Mary Frances was born in Seattle and the other children were born in Vashon.

Gee Moon Jew was taking his two eldest children, Mary Frances and George Walton, to China so they could attend a private Methodist school in Canton City. He was also going to visit his mother and other relatives and expected to be gone about three or four months. The children would probably stay three years.

Immigration authorities also interviewed Gee Moon Jew’s wife. Charlotte Irene Ward was 28 years old and born in Larned, Kansas. Her stepfather’s surname was Rogers. They could not afford to take the whole family to China, so she was staying home with the younger children. Her mother was coming from California to stay with her. There were short interviews for Mary Frances and George Walton. They identified their parents and their birth certificates were examined.

Roy M. Porter, the Immigrant Inspector, examined Gee Moon Jew’s 1909 San Francisco file. His father, Gee Fee Yee, had a Seattle file showing that he was admitted at Port Townsend, Washington in 1897. He also had a San Francisco file with a discharge statement showing that he was a native-born U.S. citizen. Porter approved the application for a return certificate for Gee Mon Jew and his children. A copy of Gee Fee Yee’s 1909 affidavit was included in the file.

“Gee Fee Yee affidavit with photos of Gee Fee Yee and Gee Mun Gew [sic]” 1909, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Gee Moon Jew case file, Seattle Box 441, file 7030/1001.

The reference sheet in the file included the case numbers for the files of Gee Moon Jew’s father, his brother, Gee Moon Ben; and Ben’s two sons, Gee Quong Sam and Gee Suey Gin.

Ah Kong – Spokane, Washington – Oriental Café

Affidavit, application for citizen's return certificate, Maps, photos, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ah Kong 1907 photo
“Ah Kong photo, Eng Gin affidavit” 1907, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ah Kong case file, Seattle Box RS 195, file RS 29169.

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before the closure in March 2020. I will let you know when the archives reopen.  thn]

In 1907 Eng Gin swore in an affidavit that he had been living in Port Townsend, Washington for forty-three years. On the Chinese date of 11 February 1877 (American date in March 1877), he and his wife, Yet Yue, had a son, Ah Kong, in Seattle, Washington. Their son was born at his place of business and residence on Washington Street between Second Avenue and Occidental Avenue. In 1885 he sent Ah Kong to Her Ping village, District of Sun Ning, Canton Province, China, to be educated. By 1907 Ah Kong finished his studies and his father wanted him to join him in Port Townsend. Ah Kong’s mother, Yet Yue died in Port Townsend about 1888. A photo of Ah Kong was included on his father’s affidavit.

In January 1908 Ah Kong, the son of Eng Gin formerly of Seattle, applied for admission to the United States at the Port of Seattle as a returning native-born Chinese.

Ah June was a witness for Ah Kong. Ah June’s name at birth was Ng Tung June and his married name was Ng See Sing. He was forty-four years old and a merchant, the manager of Zee Tai Company in Port Townsend, Washington. He came to the U.S. in 1876. He lived in Port Townsend since his arrival except for nine years in Boise, Idaho (1894 to 1903). He made three trips to China during that time. On his third trip in 1904, he resided in the Village of Gim On in the Sun Ning district. He visited Ah Kong and his family and gave Ah Kong one hundred Mexican dollars from his father.

Ah June knew Eng Gin since 1882 when Eng was living in Port Townsend at the Zee Tai’s store on Water Street, later the location of the Palace Restaurant. Eng Gin was with his wife Shue Shee (Yet Yue) and his son Eng Kong who was about five or six at that time. Eng Gin and his family lived in Port Townsend for about six months before moving to Port Discovery where Eng Gin was employed as a foreman in a sawmill. They stayed there about two years then moved back to a house on Quincy Street in Port Townsend. Ah June thought Eng Gin had another son who was called Ah Wing or Eng Wing but did not know much about him.

Ah Kong was questioned after he arrived at the Port of Seattle on 8 January 1908. He said his other name was Yee Quay and his family name was Eng. He was thirty years old and married. He was born in Seattle on Washington Street between Occidental and Second Avenue. When he was about seven years old, he went to China from San Francisco with a distant cousin, Eng Fong Hock.

Aloysuis Harker was also a witness for Ah Kong. He was in the produce and commission business and had lived in Seattle since 1871, over thirty years. He was well acquainted with many Chinese and knew Chin Ching Hock, Chin Gee Hee, Lu Woo, Eng Gin and many others. He was asked in detail about the addresses for several Chinese businesses. Some of the street names had changed since the Seattle fire of 1889 so he drew a map to show where the businesses were and to explain the new street names. Although Harker had not seen Ah Kong in many years, he thought the photo Ah Kong on his identity card had “the appearance” of the boy he had known twenty years ago.

C. E. Carleton testified for Ah Kong. Carleton was a painter who came to Seattle in 1881. He knew Eng Gin, Wah Chong, Chin Pong and several other Chinese. He got to know Eng Gin when he painted the store Eng managed, Quong Yuen Long Company, on Washington Street. He said the store was on the south side of Washington Street next to the old Standard Theatre which was now the Lyric Theatre. He pointed placed out on the maps that Harker had drawn. He described Eng Gin’s wife as short, thickset, fat, and good looking with big feet. Ah Kong was a young boy when he met him. To the best of Carleton’s memory, the young man in the case file photo resembled the boy he met many years ago.

Ah Kong was admitted at the Port of Seattle.

Ah Kong Form 430 1912 photo
“Ah Kong, Form 430 photo” 1912, CEA files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ah Kong case file, file RS 29169.

In April 1912 Ah Kong applied for pre-investigation of status as an American-born Chinese. He wanted to make a trip to China. Ah Kong was a restaurant keeper at the Oriental Café at 412 Riverside Street in Spokane, Washington. He gave his name as Ah Quong [usually spelled Kong] of the Ng [Eng] family. His married name was Yee Quay. He was thirty-five years old and was born in Seattle, Washington. He married Louie See of Wong Mo Hin village, Sunning district, China. She had bound feet.  Their two sons and one daughter, ages eight to twelve, were born in Sai On village, Sunning district, China.

Ah Kong’s Form 430, Application of Alleged American-Born Chinese for Preinvestigation of Status, dated 29 April 1912, states that officer in charge was prepared to approve the application. There is nothing in the file that shows that Ah Kong left the United States in 1912 or returned at a later date.

Ah Yen, minor son of Port Townsend, WA Merchant

Affidavit, Photographs, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before the closure in March 2020. I will let you know when the archives reopens.  THN]

Ah Yen, the minor son of She Get, a Chinese merchant from Port Townsend, Washington arrived in Port Townsend on 25 April 1904 on the S. S. Tremont. He was fifteen years old, weighed 108 pounds and had a large scar above the center of his forehead near his hairline.

In his interview with Thomas M. Fisher, the Chinese Inspector in Charge at Port Townsend, Ah Yen stated that he lived in Cha Chung village in the district of San Ning, China. He lived with his older brother and his wife and his younger brother. Their mother died in 1901. There were about thirty houses in their village. Their house was a few blocks from a large stream. When his father, She Get, visited about 1898, he stayed for one year. After She Get returned to the U.S., they received letters from him. Ah Yen described his father as a tall, fat man who was a member of the Get Gee Company. [He was only about 8 or 9 when his father visited, so maybe his father seemed tall.]

Inspector Fisher interviewed witness, James W. Stockand, who had lived in Port Townsend for forty years and was a clerk in a store.  Stockand said She Get had a legitimate store with a small stock of goods and he never saw any gambling there. He thought She Get was likely to provide for his son financially.

Another witness, Max Gerson, was a merchant in Port Townsend.  He had lived there since 1882 and knew She Get for over two years. Gerson stated that She Get had a Chinese general merchandise store on Adams Street between Washington and Water. Gerson felt confident that if She Get’s son was admitted, he would not become a public charge. He thought She Get was a man of some means; a gentleman who would support his son. Stockand and Gerson gave the same information in an affidavit and described She Get. They said he was 47 years old, about 5 feet 4 inches, heavy build, weighed about 180 pounds, spoke English very well, seemed to be a very good businessman, and the photo of She Get attached to the affidavit was a good likeness on him.

“She Get photo in Garson-Stockand Affidavit,” 1904, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ah Yen case file, Seattle Box RS 55, file RS 2168.

She Get testified that he was forty-seven years old and had lived in Port Townsend for a littleover two years. Previously he lived in Spokane for fifteen years and Colfax before that. He had been in the U.S. for twenty-five years. She Get sold Chinese merchandise at Yee Yuen Company in Spokane at 513 Front Avenue and had about $1,000 in stock. He sold his Spokane store and started new store in Spokane and also a business in Port Townsend in March 1902 with nine partners. Their stock on hand is worth $3,900.  His share is $500.  His share in the new Spokane store was about $500. He registered as a merchant and had been back to China twice. He brought his son Ah Yen to the U.S. so he could attend school here and help in the store. In his affidavit he swore that was married to Sin Lim for twenty-seven years until she died in 1901.

Ah Gee swore in a 1904 affidavit that he was a resident of Port Townsend and a member and bookkeeper of the Zee Tai Company. He was originally from Dow Dung, Sin Ning, Canton, China. On a 1901 to 1903 trip to China, he visited Sha Chung [Cha Chung] to see She Get’s son and give him and his brothers money from their father.

Another witness Eng Gay testified that She Get had three sons. He stated that the village of Cha Chung was a one-day, eighty-cents steamboat trip from Hong Kong.

[Witnesses were  questioned when the applicant arrived or departed. Frequently their testimonies also appeared in affidavits at some point during the application process.]

In September 1908, Ah Yen planned a trip to China. Max Garson and Milson Dobbs, citizens of the United States and residents of Port Townsend, swore in an affidavit that they were acquainted with She Get; he was a merchant not a laborer, a member and manager of Get Kee Company at 109 ½ Adams Street, Port Townsend; he performed no manual labor; that no laundry, gambling establishment or restaurant was connected with the firm; and that they knew Ah Yen, son of She Get, who was admitted 30 April 1904. Ah Yen’s photograph was attached so he could be identified when he returned.

“Ah Yen photo, Garson-Dobbs Affidavit,” 1908, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Ah Yen case file, Seattle Box RS 55, file RS 2168.

She Get swore in an affidavit that his son, Ah Yen, was about to depart for China. The purpose of the affidavit was to secure his readmittance into the United States.

Ah Yen returned on 31 May 1909, arriving on the S.S. Princess Victoria in Seattle, and was admitted.