Tag Archives: China

Ng Back Ging – Son of Seattle Merchant

Affidavit, Canadiaan CI 4, Canadian CI 9, Canadian documents, Description of house, Description of village, head tax, merchant, minor son of merchant, photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ng Buck Look wanted to bring his son, Ng Back Ging, to the United States. Ng Buck Look (sometimes referred to as Ng Bok Look or Bok Look; marriage name: Yip Gee), was born in China and came to the United States in 1923. In August 1925 he swore in an affidavit that since his arrival, he had been a buyer and partner for the Quong Chong Company on King Street in Seattle, Washington. He and his wife, Wong Shee, had three sons, one of them passed away at the age of two years old. Ng Bok Look completed his affidavit and attached photos of himself and his son, Ng Back Ging, who was classified as the minor son of a merchant.

“Ng Buck Look [sic] Affidavit,” 1925, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Back Ging, Box 837, file 7031/120

In March 1926, Ng Back Ging, age fifteen, arrived in the Port of Seattle. He testified that he was born in Mun Low village, Sun Woy district, China. He had not seen his father in five or six years. His father had lived in China and Canada before coming to Seattle. His grandfather was a farmer in their village and his great grandfather was dead. The interrogator asked about his mother’s and father’s extended families. He described the village where he grew up, the houses, and the neighbors. His family had a red marriage paper with his great grandparents and grandparents’ names listed. He was asked about the tiles or stones in the house and the court, if they had a sewing machine or ancestral tablets, what the floors were made of, where the large and small doors, the windows, and the bedrooms were located, if they had a rice mill or pounder, and any pictures on the walls. Ng Back Ging was asked for details about his neighbors, their families, their houses, and the village. Where was the shrine? Was there a wall around the village, what was it made of? Is there a pond or stream near the village? Any land for growing rice or any stores? Is there a watch tower? Who are the watchmen? Who is the head of the village? He described his school experience. His testimony was over six pages long.

A. Brattstom, a white witness for Ng Buck Look, was interviewed. He was a salesman for the Mutual Paper Corporation and he sold paper, twine, bags and other paper goods to Buck Look at the Quong Chung Co. He knew Buck Look was a partner with Sam Choi. Brattstom was in the store at least once or twice a week.

Ng Dok Foon, the manager of Quong Chung Co. also testified. There were eleven partners in the firm, six of them were active. Their annual total sales were between $24,000 and $25,000. There was no gambling on the premises. The interpreter examined the company’s books and the figures agreed with the testimony. Ng Dok Foon lived in the same village as Buck Look and could verify all the information that had been given in the interviews.

There was a lengthy interview of Ng Buck Look. He described his father, Ng Dok Baw, who was about fifty-seven years old and worked in their home village in the rice fields. Buck Look’s mother had died, and his father remarried. He had five brothers and one sister. One of his brothers, Bok Fook, came to the U.S. and lived in somewhere in Oklahoma. He described his other siblings, their spouses and children, and the other details that his son described.

John A. Thompson, a meat cutter at Fair Market on King Street, was also a witness. He verified Ng Buck Look’s photo, and their testimony agreed. They were in each other’s stores frequently, sometimes once or twice a day. He considered Ng Buck Look “a pretty good merchant.”

Ng Buck Look was recalled, and five more pages of testimony were taken. He was asked about his father, the neighbors and their houses and families, slave families, ancestral halls, fishponds, walls around the city, watch towers, bridges and streams, markets, his son’s school experience, details about Ng Dok Foon [to make sure their testimonies agreed]. Ng Bok Look originally entered North America through Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He paid a $500 head tax when he arrived. He took one trip back to China while he lived in Canada. He planned to stay in Vancouver but decided to make a short visit to the U.S. He found a business opportunity in Seattle, so he decided to stay. Ng Buck Look did not have his Canadian documents with him, but he was allowed to go retrieve them. He presented a receipt for $500 head tax he paid, and a card showing his admittance into Vancouver on 12 March 1923 under Certificate of Identity 9, No. 45482.

Ng Back Ging, CEA , Canadian CI 5, 1914 & CI 9, 1923, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, file 7031/120.

9 March 1926, the Department of Immigration and Colonization in Canada sent the Seattle Immigration office certified documents showing Ng Buck Look’s original entry to Canada. They added a reminder that Ng Buck Look had forfeited his right to be readmitted to Canada by remaining away longer than the statutory period of two years.

Finally, the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) agreed that Ng Back Ging should be admitted. His father’s merchant status was confirmed, the books of his company were examined and cleared, and two statutory witnesses other than Chinese had been examined. His father was a member of one of the oldest Chinese stores in Seattle. There were no discrepancies in all the testimony. The father and son resembled each other and had similar mannerisms. The father was in China at the right time to conceive a son with Ng Back Ging’s date of birth. The decision to admit Ng Back Ging was unanimous. He was admitted on 13 March 1926.

[To be continued next blog entry]

Lock Yet – Laborer to Merchant – Olympia to Holquim

Affidavit, Certificate of Residence, laborer's return certificate, Lost Certificate, merchant, Status Change, White witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 1901 Lock Yet, a Chinese laborer from Olympia, Washington, wanted to visit his family in China, stay for one year, and bring his son back to the U.S. He filled out all the necessary paperwork according to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. He wanted to assure that he would be able return to the U.S. with his son. In an affidavit, Lock Yet stated that he had been a resident of Olympia since 1894. He had applied for and received a Certificate of Residence #43944. He described himself as thirty-eight years old, shallow complexion, brown eyes, and very large thick lips. The Act required that a laborer wanting to leave be owed more than $1,000 that could only be collected when he return. Lock How, Lock Wing, and Lock Sing, all from Olympia, each owed him more than $400, fulfilling the requirement. Lock Yet completed his affidavit by attaching a photo of himself.

“Lock Yet, Affidavit, page 1” 1901, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, Box RS256, file RS32260.
“Lock Yet, Affidavit, page 1” 1901, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, Box RS256, file RS32260.

P. J. O’Brien and W. W. Bellman were Lock Yet’s witnesses. Their testimony agreed with Lock Yet’s. G. C. Israel, a Notary Public, also swore in an affidavit that he had personal known the witnesses for the past five years, they were reputable businessmen living in Olympia, and their statement were trueful.

Lock Yet hoped to leave from Port Townsend. There are no documents in his file showing his paperwork was approved, or that he left for China and returned with his son.

The next documents in the file are from August 1913. Lock Yet left Olympia by train to Hoquiam, Grays Harbor, Washington. He lost his Certificate of Residence somewhere on the tripso he applied for a new one and attached a current photo of himself in American clothes. His attorney, Sidney Moor Heath, sent a letter to the Immigration Office in Seattle explaining the situation. Lock Lad, owner of the Foo Lee Laundry, in Hoquiam, testified that he had known Lock Yet for twenty-five years and had seen his original certificate in the past but neither of them could find it. Parker Ellis, Immigrant Inspector, wrote a letter In October 1913 regarding the lost certificate. Ellis mentioned Lock Yet’s 1901 visit to China.  Ellis DeBruler, Immigration Commissioner at Aberdeen, wrote back saying that Lock Yet was admitted through the Aberteen port in late 1902 and had his certificate with him at the time. Lock Yet’s Certificate of Residence was officially declared lost and a duplicate #144502 was issued to him.

In October 1914, Lock Yet applied for a Return Certificate. He swore in an affidavit that he was fifty years old, a resident of Hoquiam, Washington for the last year, after living in Olympia for twenty years and had no relatives in the United States. His marriage name was Jung Lun. His wife and son, Lock Sang, age 13, were living in his native village. He stated that he made a trip to  China in 1901 and return in 1902. [This trip  is not recorded in his file.] Liw Ting swore in an affidavit that he owed Lock Yet $1,000. Liw Ting was fifty-three years old, the owner of Nanking Noodle House in Hoquiam and knew Lock Yet for fifteen years. Lock Yet’s application was approved and he left for Git Lung, Sunning district, China. When he returned in November 1915, he told Immigration that another son, Lock Ying, was born shortly before he left China to return to the United States.         

Lock Yet, 1914, Application of Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborer Return Certificate, Form 432,
“Application of Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Laborer Return Certificate, Form 432,” 1914, CEA,
RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lock Yet, File RS32260.

   In 1918, Lock Yet wanted to change his status from laborer to merchant so he could bring his older son over from China to live with him. He now had a $300 interest in the Kung Yick Company and was working as a salesman. His salary was $25 a month. In October, Lock Yet applied for a Preinvestigation of Status as a Merchant. Immigration Inspector G. H. Mangels interviewed Lock Yet at the store, in his sickbed. He was very ill with influenza. He denied working as a laundryman, oyster fisherman, cannery man, or other manual labor during the last twelve months. He stated that he had been to China twice. In 1901 he left from Seattle and returned in 1902 through Port Townsend. [This 1901-1902 trip information is not documented in the file.] His second trip was in 1913 when he went through Seattle and returned in 1914. His status was a laborer both times.

[According to the Exclusion Act, it was necessary to have two white witnesses who were U.S. citizens, swear in an affidavit that the Chinese person wishing to be classified as a merchant had been a merchant during the last full year and had done no manual labor. The white witnesses were considered more credible than Chinese witnesses.]

Grant Talcott, a fifty-four-year-old jeweler who had lived in Olympia since 1873 was interviewed by Immigration Inspector G. H. Mangels. Talcott said he was acquainted with most of the Chinese in Olympia, and he recognized a photo of Lock Yet. Even though he had known Lock Yet for twenty-five to thirty years, he didn’t know his name. He called him “boy.” Talcott saw Lock Yet in the vicinity of the Kung Yick Company so he assumed he had some business there. The Inspector questioned if Talcott knew much about Lock Yet. Talcott admitted that he signed the affidavit that Tom O’Leary prepared without inspecting it closely.

Joseph Zemberlin was also a witness for Lock Yet. He swore that he was fifty years old, a fish dealer who lived in Olympia for over thirty years. He had known Lock Yet for about one and a half years. He saw him working in the store many times.

George G. Mills, testified that he had lived in Olympia for fifty-two years, since he was an infant. He was a hardware merchant. He was acquainted with all the Chinese in Olympia. He rambled on about how he probably saw Lock Yet in town or at the store.

Inspector Mangels interviewed Lock You, the manager of Kung Yick Company. The Inspector noted that they had Lock You’s family history from when they interviewed him when his son was admitted. There were ten members of his firm; four were active. They sold Chinese general merchandise and had about $1,400 in inventory. Lock You also ran the Lew Café where he employed six people, including two white women. Mangels reviewed the partnership and salary books

Inspector Mangels wrote up a summary of the interviews for the Seattle Immigration Office. He said Mills and Talcott were both men of high standing and that they positively identified Lock Yet’s photo. He did not place as much confidence in Zamberlin’s testimony.

[After reading Mangles reaction to Talcott’s testimony, it was surprising that he had more confidence in Talcott’s testimony than in Zamberlin’s.]

Mangels was impressed with Lock Yet’s knowledge of the store’s goods and prices and that despite Lock Yet being very ill, he testified to obtain his certificate. He thought Lock Yet had become a merchant just so his son could enter the country and then would probably go back to being a laborer.

Lock Yet’s status as a merchant was approved.

There is no information in the file to show when or if Lock Yet left for China and returned to the U.S.

Low Yow Edwin – born in Alaska

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wong Tew Quay – Wife of Merchant in Needles, California

Certificate of Identity, fraudulent claim, Interrogation, marriage custom, naturalized, nonquota visa, paper son, Precis of Investigation, Section 6 Merchant, wedding feast, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Front row: Wong Tew Quay, mother-in-law, Mah Wai
Second row: Wong Wah Chow (1st cousin), Mah Kang, Jee Yook Hing (a distant cousin) “
Mah Wai Family Photo,” ca. 1936, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Wong Tew Quay, Seattle Box 863, file 7031/776.

Wong Tew Quay was admitted at the Port of Seattle, Washington, on 1 March 1938, as the wife of a merchant. She was issued Certificate of Identity 76724. She was accompanied by her ten-year-old son, Mah Kang.

Wong Tew Quay and her son Mah Kang also had San Pedro, California files, 14036/82-B and 83-B. A Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) consisting of the chairman, two inspectors, an official government typist and an interpreter interviewed the family. There were fourteen pages of testimony.  Most of the interview was with her husband, but her file contained more than five pages of interrogation with her, the subject of the file.

Wong Tew Quay’s husband’s interrogation included this information: Gee Chow Wai (marriage name Seung Din) also had an American name, Harry Wah. His Seattle file listed him as Mah Wai. Because he used several names, he will be referred to as Mah Wai in this summary. He testified that he was born in Hong Soon village, Jee Hung section, Hoy San District, China about 1898. He left China when he was 14 and was admitted to Canada under the name Mah Wai as the son of a merchant, Mah Sang. After his arrival he did not live with Mah Sang but lived in Edmonton with the Gee family. He was asked if he freely admitted that he gained admission to Canada on a fraudulent claim. He answered that he did.

In 1924, Mah Wai’s Section 6 Certificate which allowed merchants to enter the country, was endorsed by the American vice-consul at Calgary, Aberta, Canada. Mah Wai was a partner of the Barrack Grocery store in Edmonton for two years before coming to the U.S. to become a partner of the Gim Ngoon Grocery and Restaurant in Needles, California. From there he made four trips out of the U.S., one to Canada, and three to China. On one of his trips, he married Wong Tew Quay. During his interview, he gave details of his village, wedding, their children, and his extended family. The interviewer asked if he had claimed two false sons in a previous interview and if he intended to bring them into the country for compensation.  Mah Wai admitted that he had thought about bringing them in but did not do it, and if he had, he would not have taken money to bring them in.

 [The interviews continued in spite of this alarming admission. It is surprising that he wasn’t immediately rejected or deported.]

Wong Tew Quay’s testimony agreed with her husband’s. She testified that her mother arranged their wedding. It was half old custom and half new. She first met Mah Wai on their wedding day. He gave her two gold rings and a pair of gold bracelets. Their wedding feast was held at a small pavilion in the village with music provided by two flutists. Her contributions to her new household were a large square table, several wooden stools and chairs, two ratan chairs, a wardrobe, dressing table and a washstand. Her testimony agreed with her husband’s including knowing about her husband’s claim of two false sons (paper sons).  

Their son, Jee Doo Keung (Mah Kang) was also interrogated. His testimony agreed with his parents. He attended school in Hong Soon village. On one of his father’s visits to China, his father gave him a fountain pen and took him to a moving picture show at the Hai Ping theatre in Hoy San city.  Jee Doo Keung correctly identified all the family members he was shown in various photographs.

Wong Tew Quay and Mah Wai re-examined and asked to identify the six people in the photo they had given to the American Consul in Canton during their precis interview. Their testimony agreed. Years earlier in a previous testimony Mah Wei told Immigration Service that he lived in Nam Long village but in this current interview he said he was from Hong Soon village. He confessed that as the paper son of Mah Sang, he had to say he was from Nam Long. He admitted that he made up the identifying information about the two paper sons.

The Chairman of Board of Special Inquiry noted that Gee Chow Wai (Mah Wai) was originally admitted to the U.S. from Canada in 1924. Mah Wai showed proof of being a merchant in his four previous trips out of the U.S. The rest of his testimony seemed to be honest and correct; he identified everyone in the photographs correctly; and his son resembled him. A few days earlier Mah Wai told the commissioner that he had gotten involved with a Christian church in Seattle and a woman missionary encouraged him to tell the truth about his fraudulent admission into Canada. Based on this information, Mah Wai, his wife, and son were admitted to the U.S. two weeks after their arrival.

Mah Wai, was naturalized as a United States citizen at San Bernardino, California in December 1947. In 1948 he applied for a nonquota visa for his wife through the office of the American Consul at Vancouver, B. C., Canada. The Seattle immigration office suggested that they contact the Los Angeles, California immigration office since the couple lived in Barstow, California.

There is a 1950 memo in the file that reports to the Seattle Immigration Director that Wong Tew Quay (Mary Wong Gee or Mary Tew Quay Gee) died at Loma Linda, California on 3 November 1949. She was living at Barstow, California at the time of her death.

Mah Wai’s file may have more details about how he managed to be admitted to the U.S. in spite of his admissions of fraud.

Jew Men (aka Clement Joe), minor son of merchant– Itta Bena, Mississippi

Advertisement, Affidavit, Letters of recommendation, merchant, minor son of merchant, Return Certificate, San Francisco file, Visa Application, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 1949, Immigration Services was contacting Jew Men and his family to update their files.  They wanted to see if Jew and his family had applied for permanent resident status, or if they had left the country. This is what Immigration found1:

Jew Men and his mother, Quon Shee, arrived at the Port of Seattle in April 1937. They were classified as a minor son and the wife of a domiciled Chinese Merchant, Jew Woo, a member of the firm of Joe Yuen & Co., of Itta Bena, Mississippi. They were admitted and their certificates of identity, which were held by Immigration Services in their absence, were returned to them.

Jew Men, also known as Clement Joe, was 16 years old, when he was interviewed in 1936. He had gone to school for five years in Mississippi and could speak English, Cantonese, and See Yip Hoy Ping dialects. He was born in November 1920 in Sai Hing village, Lee Toom section of the Hoy Ping district in China. He was seven years old when he first came to the U.S. with his mother. They arrived at the Port of San Francisco in August 1926 and were admitted.  He had two younger brothers who stayed in China with his mother’s sister.
Jew Men went back to China with his parents in April 1934. He and his mother did not get Return Certificates before leaving because they thought that were told by the Immigration office that they did not need them. When they wanted to return to the U.S. they applied to the American Consul at Hong Kong for a visa.  The status of merchant for Jew Woo, the father and husband of the applicants, was investigated by the New Orleans Office of Immigration and recognized. Jew Men and his mother received a joint non-immigrant visa.

An October 1936 affidavit with the signatures of sixteen citizens of Itta Bena, Leflore County, Mississippi, swearing that they knew Jew Woo (aka Ray W. Joe), a merchant, for several years and that the photos attached were of his wife and son who resided in Itta Bena from October 1926 to April 1934 until they left for China.

“Jew Woo Affidavit for Quon Shee and Jew Men,” 1936, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Jew Men, Seattle Box 861, file 7031/647.

The affidavit was signed by Mrs. W. S. Bissell, T. M. Allan, Mrs. W. A. Shurtleff, Wayne Shurtleff, J. M. Kelly, W. J. Harlin, Mrs. H Dienoff, W. D. Halsell, Buford Trussell, James C. Davis, J. M. Whittington, Chas F. Costigan, J. Q. Coppage, marshall; R. S. Love, B. B. Hudson, M. D., Mayor; Mc [Macklin] Bailey, Alderman.

In 1934, Mr. R. S. Love, Scoutmaster for Troop 38, Mississippi, wrote a glowing letter of recommendation for Clement Joe (Jew Men).  He called him a “good dependable boy” and thought he would become an Eagle Scout someday.

Jew Men’s file contains copies of Immigration’s 1936 interrogation with his father and mother, Jew Woo and Quon Shee, and a summary of Jew Woo’s file starting with his first admission to the United States in 1917 and his later trips to China. It lists Jew Woo’s San Francisco file as 1585/5-10 and Quon’s SF file as 25223/10-12. She also has a Seattle file #7031/646 which includes a full-page ad for Joe Yuen and Company. Jew Woo’s Americanized name, Ray W. Joe, appears on the ad.

“Joe Yuen Company Advertisement,” ca. 1935, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Quon Shee, Seattle Box 861, file 7031/646.

Jew Men [Clement Joe] was naturalized at New Orleans, Louisiana, on 23 December 1946.

  1. “Jew Men File,” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Jew Men, Seattle Box 861, file 7031/647. ↩︎

Chong Fong & Chong Tom- Walla Walla Merchants

Affidavit, Application for return certificate as merchant, Caucasian witnesses, Form 431, Geary Act of 1892, Mexican money, photos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Chong Fong & Chong Tom Affidavit photos,” 1908, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Chong Fong, Seattle Box 234, file 31058.

Chong Fong 張芳 was born on 12 July 1889 in Sun Gee village, Sun Ning, Kwong Tung, China. In June 1908 his father, Chong Tom, officially started the process of bringing his son into the United States. Chong Tom, Alvah Brown, C. B. Cashatt, Quong Sin, and Quong Shik, swore in affidavits that Chong Fong was the minor son of Chong Tom, a merchant at the Wah Sang Yuen Company in Walla Walla, Washington.

Fisher interviewed two Caucasian witnesses to verify the statements made by the Chinese. C. B. Cashatt stated that he had lived in Walla Walla for about thirteen years. He was on the police force and knew Chong Fong’s father, Chong Tom for eight or nine years. He thought he would know if Chong Tom had done any manual labor in the last year.  Alvah Brown, the former Chief of Police, also testified. He had known Chong Tom for about twenty-four years. To the best of his knowledge, Chong Tom had done no manual labor for the last year. He was a merchant. Both men correctly identified photos of Chong Tom.

Chong Tom testified that he arrived in the United States about 1880, moved to Walla Walla around 1881, but was in China at the time when the Chinese were required to register (Geary Act of 1892) so he did not register. Chong Tom was one of ten partners in the Wah Sang Yuen Company. They had each invested $1,000. He had made four trips to China after his initial arrival. He left and returned from various ports—San Francisco, Seattle, Port Townsend, and Sumas. He sent Chong Fong $150 in Mexican money to cover the expense of his trip to the U.S.

Quong Shuk was also interviewed in 1908. He lived in Portland, Oregon when he first arrived but had been in Walla Walla about sixteen years. He was in business with his brother, Chong Tom. Chong Toy was his son.

Chung Quong Sin testified that he was Chong Tom’s brother. He had been in Walla Walla for twenty-eight years and was a partner and merchant for the Wah Sang Yuen Company. Chong Fong was his nephew. When asked if he talked to Chong Tom’s wife, Wong She, when he visited China, he said it wasn’t the custom for a man and “a lady” to have a common conversation but they occasionally talked business.

Chong Fong arrived in Sumas, Washington on 19 October 1908. He was interviewed by immigration agents. His father and other witnesses were reinterviewed. Chong Fong was asked many questions about his father’s family including his extended family, the number of siblings he had, and where they were living. He correctly identified photos of his uncle, Chong Quong Sheck (Shuk), and cousin, Chong Toy who were living in Walla Walla. The examiner, Thomas W. Fisher, noted that Chong Fong’s testimony agreed with his father’s.

After reviewing the papers and application of Chong Fong, Fisher decided that Chong Fong was entitled to admission and Fong was admitted on 29 October 1908. Chong Fong sometimes spelled is name Chung Fong.

“Chong Fong, Application for Pre-Investigation of Status Photo, Form 431” 1913, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Chong Fong, Seattle Box 234, file 31058.

On 2 October 1913, Chong Fong applied for a return certificate with a merchant status for his upcoming trip to China. He had received an interest in his father’s business as a gift in early October 1912. He was a few days short of the required one year of being a merchant but since he was so close, his application was approved. Chong Tom became the manager of a nearby garden on a ranch after giving his interest in the company to his son.

The Wah Sang Yuen Company sold Chinese groceries and clothing and some American tobacco, candles, and soap. They paid $30 rent per month on the building. The inventory was valued at $7,000-$8,000 and sales were about $16,000 in 1912. The city and county taxes were about $50. Chong Fong received $30 per month in wages. The company was originally located on Alder street in the Keylor Building but moved to a Chinese building on 5th and Rose streets.

Chong Fong’s application required two white witnesses to testify on his behalf. Alvah Brown repeated his testimony of 1908. He lived in Walla Walla about thirty years. During that time, he was an agent for the water company, a policeman, and chief of police, before becoming a clerk at a cigar store at 3rd and Main Street. The interviewer asked Brown, “You have never drawn the line at being acquainted among the Chinese?” Brown answered “no,” and named a few Chinese that he knew: Quong Tuck Fung, Kwong Chung Sing, Wah San Yuen, Kwong Wah Sang, Charley Tung (the Interpreter for this file), Lew Tin Yee, and Chong Fong (the applicant) Fong’s other witness was Mr. V. Hunzicker, owner of a jewelry store at 111 West Main Street, between 3rd and 4th street. He came to Walla Walla about 1888.

Chong Tom testified that the partners in his Walla Walla firm, his brother, Chung Quong Shuk and Chung Quong Sin, were from Sun Gee, the village he was from in China. Sun Gee’s population was over 400 and had about 200 houses. The village was located about one half mile from the Hong Har Chung River. Since first coming to the U.S. Chong Tom had visited China four times.

Lew Tin Yee, manager of the Wah Sang Yuen Company was a witness for Chong Fong. He had been the manager for about fifteen years and had been in the U.S. for 35 years. Quong Shuk testified that he had been in the U.S. for 27 years. He was living in Portland, Oregon at the time of the registration. He lived in Walla Walla for the last 16 years.

Chong Fong, age 26, arrived at the Port of Seattle on 28 June 1915 His arrival interrogation gave the following information: marriage name: Jung Lung Fon, wife: Lee She, 26 years old, had bound feet but removed the bindings, from Chuck Suey Hong, Sunning District. They had one son, Yee Sing. Chong Fong still had a $1,000 interest in the Wah Sang Yuen Company.

He was admitted and received certificate of identity No. 2358.

A. T. Bin Town Chu – 1914 visit to China to build a model city

File, Group Photo, Lletter of Introduction, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Photo of A. T. Bin Town Chu and others, undated,” ca. 1912, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, A. T. Bin Town Chu, Seattle RS Box 248, RS 31709.

[This undated photo was included in the file. No names, place or date are given. There is a large X at the bottom of the photo, under the man sitting in the chair. This is probably A. T. Bin Town Chu.]  

In December 1913 William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State, wrote to the Diplomatic and Consular Officers of the U.S.A. to China introducing a delegation in charge of investigating the establishment of a model city in Kwangtung Province: G. J. Corey, John G. Brady, Major John D. Jeffery, Daniel Webster Trotter, C. E. Ferguson, Pierre N. Barringer, and A. T. Bin Town Chu. They planned to build a model city which included facilities for commerce, banking, transportation, education, and religious worship.

Thomas Sammons, American Consul-General wrote to the Commissioner of Immigration in Seattle in March 1914 explaining that A. T. Bin Town Chu left for China without filing the proper paperwork with Immigration authorities. He asked that Chu “be afforded every courtesy” upon his return to the United States.

When Bin Town Chu arrived at the Port of Seattle on 11 April 1914, he testified that he also had the name Ah Too but only used the initials for that part of his name, making his full name A. T. Bin Town Chu. His marriage name was Fung Gow; Chu was his family name. He was 57 years old, had several moles on his face, a scar two inches above the inner end of his left eyebrow, and wore a mustache. [A physical description is listed in the case file of applicants entering the U.S. This description was then compared every time the applicant left the country or returned.]

Upon his arrival back in the U.S., Chu testified that he was born in Haw Leu village, Sunwoi District, China. He first came to the United States in 1871 as a young boy under the name of Ah Too through the Port of San Francisco. About 1880 he went back to China and returned seven months later. He was admitted as a merchant but at that time he was not required to have papers. [The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882.] He was a member of the Quan Hing Lung Company in New York City. He went back to China in late 1882 or early 1883. He made another round trip about three years later and was admitted as a merchant. His next trip to China was in January 1914. He did not register during the period of registration after the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed and had no papers showing his prior admissions into the country. When he left earlier in 1914, he was in a hurry and did not have time for the required investigation. He was traveling with John G. Brady, former Governor of Alaska and G. J. Corey, former American Consul at Amsterdam and Public Lecturer for the Board of Education of New York City. They intended to establish a model city in Kwang Tung Province, China. They wrote to the Department of State and received a letter of introduction to the diplomatic and consular officers for the U.S. in China.


Lee Woo, manager of Mon Hing & Company, 31 ½ Pell Street, New York City and a witness for A. T. Bin Town Chu, testified in 1914 that Chu was a partner in his firm. There were thirty-five partners; ten of them were active in the store. They were Lee Woo, Lee Yick Quay, Chu Fook, Chu Goon, Lee Ock, Fung Sul Ho, Lim Tung, Ong Toon Neng, Lee Dai Lip, and Ng Yee Fook. Chu Fung Gow, also known as Chu Bin Town or Fung Gow [A.T. Bin Town Chu], had recently been to China. Chu had a $1,500 interest in the firm and would occasionally consult with Lee Woo about managing the firm.

Mr. Brady and Mr. Corey were both witnesses for A. T. Bin Town Chu. They testified that everything Chu said in his interrogation was true. They said their visit to China was purely philanthropical.

 A.T. Bin Town Chu was admitted at the Port of Seattle on the day of his arrival.

Ng Sen Wing – Vegetable Farmer, Jacksonville, Florida

Affidavit, application for citizen's return certificate, Board of Special Inquiry, bound feet, Certificate of Identity, Form 430 Native’s Return Certificate, passport, reference sheet, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ng Lee Fong swore in an New York State affidavit, dated 21 August 1921, that he was an American born citizen. He had a valid U.S. passport #1053-C. The purpose of his affidavit was to bring his wife, Wong Shee, age forty-three, and his son, Ng Sen Wing, age thirteen, to the United States. His witness was one of his other sons, Ng Jung Fie, of Jacksonville, Florida. Photos of all four of them were attached to the affidavit.

Lower: Ng Lee Fong, Wong Shee, Ng Sen Wing    Upper: Ng Jung Fie, witness
“Ng Lee Fong Affidavit,” 1921, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Sen Wing, Seattle Box 416, 7030/351.

When Ng Lee Fong, his wife, Wong Shee, and their son, Ng Sen Wong, arrived at the Port of Seattle in October 1922, Wong Shee was interviewed. She gave her maiden name as Gin Woon. She was born in Hong Hen Village, Sunning District, China. She had four sons, no daughters. Her two elder sons and their families were living in Jacksonville, Florida. The third adult son came on the ship with them and was a witness for the affidavit. Wong Shee described her family, her husband’s parents and his extended family. When asked, she said they worshiped their ancestor’s graves at Bo Hill, near Bo Chung; and patronized Ng Sum Market and the Sai Ning Market. She identified photos of her daughters-in-law and her grandchildren and gave their dates of birth.

Ng Sen Wing 伍新榮 was interviewed the same day. He testified that he came with his parents, his brother Ng Jung Fai, his wife Lee Shee and his brother Ng Jung Go’s wife, Lee Shee, and their son Wah Poy. His mother had bound feet. He described his village, which faced south, as having six houses and a small schoolhouse. It was the second house from the left-hand side of the village and had five rooms.

Ng Lee Fong, the father, testified that his marriage name was Ng Yee Hung. He correctly identified the photographs of everyone in their traveling group. Ng Lee Fong was originally admitted at Malone, New York, on 31 January 1910, as a returning native born Chinese. [This is why his 1921 affidavit was from New York State; Immigration authorities were verifying his claim of U.S. citizenship from his first re-entry into the U.S. from a visit to China.]

Everyone was examined separately and asked the same questions and asked to identify the same photos. Immigration Service wanted to be sure that everyone’s answers agreed. Inspector Mangold and the committee unanimously approved the admittance of everyone in the family. They had made an exceptional impression on the Board of Inquiry—not only did the son resemble the father but they all arrived as first-class passengers. Mangold declared it “a very excellent case.” Ng Sen Wing was admitted on 26 October 1922, as a student, and given Certificate of Identity 42852.

Ng Sen Wing
“Ng Sen Wing, Certificate of Identity Application photo, Form M135,”
1922, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Ng Sen Wing, 7030/351.

In May 1930 Ng Sen Wing applied to visit China. He was traveling with his parents, a nephew, a brother and his wife and their five children. His father, Ng Lee Fong, testified that he was born in San Jose, California. He and his sons and their families worked on a forty-acre vegetable farm about six miles from Jacksonville valued at about $10,000 [worth about $182,000 in 2023]. He updated all the family information on his sons by giving his grandchildren’s names, ages, and place of birth.

Witness statements for Ng Sen Wing and his three brothers are included in Ng Sen Wing’s file. The questions and answers were mostly the same as in previous examinations. His trip was approved. He left for China and he returned in January 1932.

Six months later he was seeking approval for another visit to China. His application was brief. When asked if he brought his wife, Lee Kim How, with him when he returned in January 1932, he said he had. Now she was being deported because she was not the same person mentioned in her return citizen’s certificate. He was making the trip back to China with her. The Reference Sheet included in Ng Sen Wing’s file lists Lee Kim How’s file as 7030/3463. [Her file should give more information. I will find her file and let you know what was going on. THN]

When Ng Sen Wing returned in May 1934, he was married Lee Kim How and they had a son, Wah Kuey, age 2. His wife and son stayed in China.

In October 1934, Ng Sen Wing of Jacksonville, Florida applied for a Citizen Return Certificate to visit China. He was interviewed about his status as a United States citizen. He was considered a citizen because he was the son of a native, Ng Lee Fong. He presented his Certificate of Identity #42852, which was issued to him when he first arrived in 1922.

His application included his physical description: age 25, height 5’ 4”, 130 pounds, yellow complexion, black hair, and brown eyes. He had a brown mole below the outer corner of his right eye, and marks on the lobe of his right ear and right and left side of his neck. He testified that he lived on a Chinese farm on Lake city road, route 5, Jacksonville, Florida. He was married on 3 February 1931 in Hong Kong, to Lee Kim How, age 21, born in Washington, D.C. His marriage name was Ng See Quong. His wife was living in Lung Chill Loy, China, with their child, Ng Wah Kui [also spelled Kuey].

His request was approved, and he left on 3 December 1934. His Certificate of Identity #42852 was retained at the district office. [The certificate would be returned to him when he re-entered the U.S. This was to assure that if he decided to stay in China, he could not sell or give his certificate to someone else.] His application included sworn statements of his two brothers, Ng Jung Fie, and Ng Jung Go, who were citizens of the United States.

When Ng Sen Wing returned on 23 July 1935 he was admitted at the Port of Seattle. The reference sheet in Ng Sen Wing’s file lists the names and file numbers for his wife (with a note saying she had been deported), his parents, three brothers, five nieces and nephews, and three sisters-in-laws. [This is a gold mine of information for someone researching this family.]

Ah Soon – Merchant/broker to Laborer 1913-1915

Application for laborer's return certificate, Application for return certificate as merchant, Overtime Certificate, White witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a continuation of Ah Soon’s 1899-1907 file posted on the blog on 27 April 2023

Quick summary of the earlier post:
Ah Soon’s file starts in 1899, when as a cook (laborer) living in Helena, Montana, he is applying to visit China. He returns in 1900. In 1907 he was a merchant living in Seattle working for Ah King Company. He visited China again in 1907 and returned in 1909.

There is no activity in Ah Soon’s file from 1909 to February 1913.

28 Feb 1913
Ah Soon applied to travel aboard under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Regulations of the Department of Commerce and Labor with the status of a domiciled broker. He had merchant status and claimed that he owned 2,000 shares of the Canton Province Mining Company in Seattle.

Ah Soon, Form 431, Application of Lawfully Domiciled Chinese Merchant, Teacher, or Student, for Preinvestigation of Status, 28 Feb 1913, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Ah Soon file, Seattle RS Box 219, RS30384.

3 March 1913
White witness, George F. Ober, a thirty-nine-year-old mining engineer in Seattle, testified that he had lived in Seattle for over three years. He knew Ah Soon was a merchant and real estate broker who bought and sold restaurants and laundries. Soon worked with Wong Shin How at a curio exhibit for an Ah King concern at the Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition in Seattle in1909. Ah Soon was a stockholder in the Canton Province Mining Company and sold shares of the company on commission. The Mining Investment officers and trustees were President: Ah King; Vice President: Thomas W. Snaith; Secretary and Treasurer: George F. Ober; Trustee L.L. Thorp; Managers: Yee Onlai, Assistant Secretary: Louie Kee.

Ah Soon, “Mining Investment,” CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, RS Box 219, RS30384.

Joseph H. Beaven, another white witness, stated that he was fifty-four years old and a superintendent of Baptist mission work. He had known Ah Soon about twenty years. Ah Soon was employed and a stockholder at the Ah King Company. About twenty years ago Ah Soon was a cook at a restaurant in Spokane but presently had an interest in his brother’s store, the Ah King Company.

Later that day, Ah Soon testified that he had misplaced his certificate of residence but was classified as a merchant. He was a mining stockbroker, living at the Ken Chung Lung Store in Seattle. He owned 2,000 shares in the Canton Province Mining Company. He paid $.06 to acquire a share and got 15% commission on every dollar’s worth of stock he sold. He had sold over $2,000 worth of stock in a little over two years. He also sold goods on commission from the Ken Chong Lung Company. He denied doing any manual labor in the past twelve months. He signed his statement in Chinese characters.

12 March 1913
A letter from the Ellis DeBruler, Immigration Commissioner, stated that he was not satisfied that Ah Soon met the requirements to receive a return certificate as a domiciled exempt broker. DeBruler thought Ah Soon’s white witnesses also could not testify that he met the requirements.

20 March 1913
J. V. Stewart, Chinese Inspector, put a note dated 20 March 1913, into Ng Ah Soon file saying that he found Ng Ah Soon acting as cashier in the Peking restaurant in Tacoma, Washington. And J. A. Wilkens, A.S. Fulton, and watchman Sylvester, were witnesses also.

Ah Soon, “Stewart Note,”1913, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, RS Box 219, RS30384.

8 July 1913
Ah Soon testified that his “baby name” was Gong Sen, Hock (Hok) Fong was his marriage name, and his American name was Ah Soon. He was fifty years old, born in Har Ping village, Sun Ning District, China. He originally came to the U.S. through San Francisco. He had been back to China twice, in KS 24 or 25 (1898 or 1899), returning KS 26 (1900) through Port Townsend as a laborer. He went to China in KS 33(1907)  and returned in 1909 through Seattle as a merchant and a member of Ah King Company. In 1913 he was living in Tacoma and working as a laborer at the New York Laundry. He earned $40 per month. Charley Dan owned the laundry. He based his claim for a return certificate on his loan to Charley Dan for $1,100 so Charley could buy an interest in the Peking Café and buy a laundry. Ah Soon got the money from his brother, Ah King, [sometimes he says Ah King was his cousin] when he sold his interest in the Ah King Company store in Seattle. 

Ah Soon was married to Lou Shee. They had two children, a boy and a girl. Their son, Gong Sen/Kwong Sin was born in 1908, was six years old and their daughter, Ah Que, was about fourteen years old.

Ah Soon was cautioned that he should not collect any part of his loan to Charley Dan while he was in China because it would change his status and he would not be able to return to the U.S. Ah Soon signed his statement in Chinese and English. Charley Dan, baby name Men Dan, was his witness. Dan was married and twenty-eight years old. He and his wife and fifteen-month-old daughter, Annie Dan, were living at the laundry at 1508 South D Street in Tacoma. Dan was a native-born citizen. He went to China when he was six years old, returning when he was nineteen years old and was admitted at Port Townsend.

9 July 1913
A letter from the Immigrant Inspector in Tacoma to the Commissioner of Immigration in Seattle, confirmed that Ah Soon was issued a Certificate of Residence #14906 as a laborer at Helena, Montana on 24 Feb 1894. [Ah Soon status was changed from a merchant to a laborer.]

Ah Soon, “Letter 30,564,”1913, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, RS Box 219, RS30384.

5 August 1913
Ah Soon made another trip to China.

8 April 1915
Ah Soon was unable to return within the allowed one-year period because he was sick with rheumatism. He provided corroborative statements by Chin Gee Hee and Ng Kun. Ah Soon obtained a Chinese Overtime Certificate.

Ah Soon, “Overtime Certificate 25/1915,”1915, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, RS Box 219, RS30384.

9 May 1915
Ah Soon returned from China in May. Upon his arrival he testified that a son, Quong Ock was born after he left China in July 1913. He now had two sons. His daughter died about 1912.

12 July 1915
Ah Soon applied for the laborer’s return certificate to return to China. He recently had made a loan of $1,000 to Mah Fook Hing, a merchant at Yik Fong Company at 705 King Street in Seattle. Hing was interviewed and although he did not sign a promissory note, he substantiated Soon’s testimony. Ah Soon planned to leave for Hong Kong on the July 17 and would be staying at the Sam Yik Company. This is the last document in his file, so he probably did not return to the U.S.