Tag Archives: Ellis DeBruler

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.

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.




Chin Wah – Hoping to return to Salt Lake City from Paris, France in 1925

Affidavit, Application for Pre-investigation Status, Certificate of Residence, photo, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

In early October 1925, Julian M. Thomas, Counsellor at Law in Paris, France, wrote to the U.S. commissioner of Immigration in Seattle, Washington, requesting the necessary papers to allow Chin Wah to return to the United States. Chin Wah claimed that he was well-known in Seattle, Washington in 1904 by both the Wa Chong Company and the Quong Tuck Company and many other residents of the city including A.W. Ryan, a policeman; Charles Phillips, a detective; Fred Lyson, a lawyer; and Lee Hoey, a Chinese person.

In June 1904, L. Dan swore in an affidavit that he had lived in the U.S. for more than twenty years and that he knew Chin Wah’s parents when their son, Chin Wah, was born. Dan testified that after Chin Wah’s parents died, Chin lived with him. L. Dan’s wife, Wong Sine, was a sister of Chin Wah’s mother. A. W. Ryan and Charles Phillips, both white citizens of the U.S., and residence of Seattle for more than fifteen years also swore that Chin Wah was born in Seattle. These affidavits were drawn up to prove that Chin Wah was a native-born citizen of Chinese parentage.

“L. Dan, affidavit,” 1904, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Chin Wah case file, Seattle RS Box 222, file RS 30543.

In 1913 in his pre-investigation interview to make a trip to China, Chin Wah testified that he was living in Salt Lake City, Utah, and working at the Grand Restaurant at 47 West 2nd South Street as a cook and sometimes a waiter. He said he was born at North 512 [414 in 1925] Washington Street, Seattle, Washington on 15 January 1890, the son of Chin Chung (Ching/Gin/Gen} [the spelling varies throughout the documents] and Wong Shee. His father died in Sitka, Alaska in 1899. He and his mother moved to Portland, Oregon about 1901. She died a year later. After her death, he went back to Seattle and lived over the store of Quong Gwa Lung Company with his uncle, Ng Yee Loots (L. Dan) and his aunt, his mother’s sister. He attended the Methodist Mission school on Spring Street for about two years. Other places he lived in Washington state were Cle Elum, Ellensburg, Yakima, and Pasco before going to Salt Lake City, Utah about 1910. While in Salt Lake City he worked for U.S. District Judge John A. Marshal, Mr. William H. Childs as a cook, and Captain Burt at Fort Douglas.

“Chin Wah, Form 430 photo,” 1913, CEA, NARA-Seattle, file RS 30543

D. A. Plumly, the examining inspector at Salt Lake City, sent Chin Wah’s application and the original affidavits of the witnesses to Louis Adams, Inspector in Charge at Denver, Colorado. Adams sent everything on to Immigration in Seattle and requested that they re-examine the witnesses since they were residents of Seattle. Adams noted that Inspector Plumly did not expect a favorable report. [There is no explanation of why the documents were sent to Denver.]

J. V. Stewart, the Seattle Chinese Inspector, interviewed all the 1904 witnesses again in 1913. He thought the witnesses only knew someone they thought was Chin Wah as a small child but since they had not seen Chin Wah for many years they could not be sure of his identity. Stewart thought Lee Hoey was a “manufactured witness” and the other witnesses’ information was so vague they could have been talking about several different children. Stewart noted that Chin Wah’s parents did not appear in the 1895 Seattle census of Chinese and rumors said that Ah Dan was known as a gambler and connected with other fraudulent cases. Based on this information Stewart did not approve Chin Wah’s application.

L. Dan was also known as Ah Dan or his married name Ng Yee Yin. He was fifty years old and was born in China. He did not have a certificate of residence. He was living in Port Townsend, Washington and was a merchant with the Yee Sing Wah Kee Company when he was required to register in 1894. [According to the Geary Act of 1892, Chinese who were not registered for a certificate of residence could be arrested and sent to China even if they were born in the United States.] L. Dan lived in Tacoma, Washington, for a year before moving to Seattle where he got to know Chin Gin and his son Chin Wah.

Witness Charles Phillips testified that he was 48 years old and had live in Seattle twenty-six years. He was a city detective. He knew Chin Wah when he was a young child and after being cross examined, he said that he could not state unequivocally if Chin Wah was the son of Chin Ching/Gin.

Witness Lee Hoey, also known as Lee Tan Guhl, stated that he was 66 years old and born in China. He showed the interrogator his certificate of residence. He had lived in Seattle fifteen or twenty years and remember the big fire in June 1889.  He identified a photo of Chin Wah although he had not seen him in over ten years. The interrogator asked Lee Hoey how much he was being paid to testify in this case.  Hoey denied the charge.

A.W. Ryan, another witness, testified in 1913 that he was 56 years old and a sergeant for the Seattle police force for about twenty years. Although he swore that he knew Chin Wah in 1904, he could not be sure that this was the same person in 1913.  Ryan said that at the time of Chin Wah’s birth in 1890 there were only four or five Chinese women in Seattle and maybe twenty-five children. It was his impression that the person he testified in behalf of in 1913 was Chin Wah was the same boy he knew in 1904 but he could not swear to it. Therefore the immigration commissioner, Ellis deBruler, did not approval Chin Wah’s return certification because he did not believe that Chin Wah was born in the U.S.

In October 1925, based on the information and witness statements in Chin Wah’s file, the documents were not approved so were no papers to forward to Paris so Chin Wah could be allowed to return to the U.S.

[This file does not tell us when Chin Wah left the U.S. or why he left when his application for departure was not approved. Without the approval, he would have known that it would be extremely difficult to re-enter the U.S. There are no clues about what he was doing between 1913 and 1925 or why was he investigated in Denver, Colorado, or what was he doing in Paris, France, in 1925. If he had been allowed to arrive at a port in the U.S. and then interrogated, some of these questions may have been answered. Unfortunately, we may never know the rest of Chin Wah’s story.]

Jay Boo Yum – Portland, OR

discrepancies, Group Photo, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Heung Shee, Jay Boo Yum, Jay Yu Nom family portrait
“Heung Shee, Jay Boo Yum, Jay Yu Nom family portrait” 1894, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Jay Boo Yum case file, Portland Box 7,file 1900.

Photo by Thwaites, 167 Fourth St. bet. Morrison and Yamhill, Portland, OR
Jay Boo Yum, born in Portland, Oregon in 1892 was the son of Jay Yu Chong, a well-known jeweler and a member of Fook Sang & Company. Jay Yu Chong, also known as Jay Yu Nom, was born in China and first entered the U.S. at San Francisco in 1877.
Three Caucasian witnesses testified in their behalf– Gus Rosenblatt, M. Billings, and Dr. S. Lewis King when Jay Yu Chong and family left for China in 1894.
Jay Yu Chong had two wives—one in China and one in Portland. He married Heung Shee in San Francisco in 1890. They moved to Portland shortly after they were married. In 1894 Jay Yu Chong applied to visit China with Jay Heung Shee, his 2nd wife, and their two-year old son, Jay Boo Yum. They were going to his home village of Don Jo, in the Nom Hoy district. His first wife, Fung Shee, was living there with her two sons by Jay Yu Chong.
Jay Boo Yum was sick when his parents returned to Portland in 1895 so stayed in China with his extended family. They all lived within a few houses of each other in the center of the village called Gook Tong Fong. Jay Yu Chong regularly sent support money to them.

By 1909 Jay Yu Chong and his 2nd wife had seven children, all born in Portland; five were living. They made a trip to China in 1909 to bring back Jay Boo Yum, their oldest son. Immigration Inspector Barbour interviewed the same three witnesses who had been interviewed in 1894. Gus Rosenblatt swore that he had known Jay Yee Chung for 25 years and took friends to Fook Sang & Company to see the Chinese jewelry. M. Billings who had fire insurance business swore that he had known Jay Yu Chong since around 1890 and S. Lewis King, a physician and surgeon, swore that he delivered Jay Yu Chung’s son, Jay Boo Yum, in 1892.
Jay Yu Chong presented Jay Boo Yum’s Oregon birth certificate for inspection and it was returned to the family. A copy is not in the file.
There were a few discrepancies in the statements taken by Commissioner of Immigration Ellis DeBruler that needed to be cleared up. The applicant stated that his father had one wife but Jay Yu Chong had two wives. Jay Yu Chong explained that his son thought if he said his father had two wives his father may not have been able to enter the country. Jay Boo Chong also thought his father and his second wife only had three children instead of five. He had not been informed about the births of the last two children. J. H. Barbour, Immigration Inspector in Charge, did not think the discrepancies were important enough to exclude Jay Boo Yum because all the other paper work was valid. Jay Boo Yum was admitted to the United States.

Fong See – lonely and crying in detention

Affidavit, Caucasian witnesses, Photographs, student, Witnesses, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fong See arrived at the Port of Seattle on the S.S. Iroquois on 22 May 1911. She was applying to be admitted to the United States as the lawful wife of Lee Yew, a merchant at On Lee Company in Portland, Oregon.  Ellis DeBruler, Immigration Commissioner, wanted to expedite her landing. She was forty-six years old with bound feet; the only Chinese woman in the detention house. She was suffering from extreme loneliness and cried a great deal.

Fong See & Lee Yew 1910 Affidavit photos
“Fong See & Lee Yew Affidavit Photos” 1910, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Fong See case file, Portland Box 13,file 2409.

On 10 September 1910 Lee Yew made an affidavit to establish his status as a Chinese merchant and that of his wife, Fong See, as the wife of a merchant so she could join him and his son in Portland.

E. Hussey, Acting Chinese Inspector in Seattle reported to J. H. Barbour, Inspector in Charge in Portland, that after inspecting the premises of the On Lee Company, reviewing its partnership list and interviewing two Caucasian witnesses, Thomas G. Farrell and John B. Coffey, he was satisfied with Lee Yew’s status as a merchant

Thomas G. Farrell, age 43, testified in 1911 that he had been living in Portland for almost 43 years. He was a merchant in wholesale groceries on Front Street. He knew many Chinese and was acquainted with Lee Yew for five or six years. Lee Yew bought his poultry and eggs from Farrell so he was at Farrell’s business at least once a week.

John B. Coffey was in the tailoring business in the Elks Building and had been living in Portland for twenty-five years. He knew many Chinese socially and through his work. He and Lee Yew were acquainted in Salem, Oregon before Lee Yew came to Portland. Coffey was a witness for Lee Yew when his son came to the U.S.

After Inspector Hussey was satisfied that Lee Yew’s mercantile status was established, he interrogated Lee Sun Hing, the son of Fong See and Lee Yew.

Lee Sun Hing was born in China and arrived in the U.S. at Sumas, Washington in 1908 and was admitted as the minor son of a merchant. He was a student and after his Lee Yew’s death he inherited his father’s interest in the On Lee Company.

Lew Yew was too sick to testify about his status as a merchant and his marriage to Fong See when she arrived in Seattle in 1911. He died within a few months after Fong See’s arrival.

Fong See was admitted as the lawful wife of Lee Yew and went to live above the On Lee Company store in Portland with her son.