Tag Archives: laundry

Lee Poo – Chinese Gardener, Walla Walla, Washington

Affidavit, appeal, Bayard-Zhang Treaty of 1888, Certificate of Residence, IOU, laborer, photo, promissory notes, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
“Affidavit photo of Lee Poo,” 1903, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85,
NARA-Seattle, Lee Poo, Box RS 019, file RS 664.

1903 Sept 28 –   Lee Poo started the process of obtaining a return certificate which would allow him to reenter the U.S. within a year of his department date. He swore in an affidavit that he was laborer, age 37 years, had been in the United States 23 years and was living in Walla Walla, Washington, and working as a gardener nearby. He was owed more than $1,000 by Jim Lee and Hoy Yam, both of Walla Walla. He handed over his Certificate of Residence which would be returned to him when he reentered the U.S. His photo was attached to the affidavit.

1903 Sept 28 – Jim Lee and Hoy Yam, both from Walla Walla, swore that they owed Lee Poo, a total of $1,100.  The Chinese Inspector verified the loans with them.

1903 October 8 – the Commissioner-General at the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, D.C. wrote to the Inspector in Charge in Port Townsend, Washington saying they compared Lee Poo’s duplicate Certificate of Residence that they had in their file and it completely agreed with Lee’s copy. Hoy Yam testified that he still owed Lee Poo money. Jim Lee who worked as a gardener in Walla Walla, also testified that he still owed Lee Poo money.

1904 June 28 – R. B. Scott, the Chinese Inspector at Port Townsend report that Jim Lee and Hoy Yan both said that neither of the debts were in the form of promissory notes.

1904 Aug 24 – When Lee Poo returned to Port Townsend on 25 August 1904, he testified that he was 38 years old and lived in Walla Walla. He had worked in a laundry for three years, then as a cook for fifteen or so years, and as a gardener for the last two years.  He saved his earnings and accumulated about $3,500. He took half of it to China and left the remainder with his cousin, Jim Lee who owned a garden in Walla Walla near the O.R. & N (Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company) depot. Lee Poo worked every day of the week for one dollar a day. Jim Lee had only paid him about $40 so he still owed him $500.
Lee Poo loaned $600 in gold coins to Hoy Yan so he could buy an interest in a garden. He kept his money at Quong Chung Seng’s place in Walla Walla. Bow Loy, a member of the firm, was a witness to the transaction and held the notes. He signed an IOU for the money.

Lee Poo also leased a garden with his cousin Lee Hing in Dayton, Washington. They owned a horse and wagon.

Lee Poo’s trip to China involved taking a steamer from Port Townsend to Victoria, another steamer to Vancouver, then the Empress Line to China. After Lee Poo’s return, Jim Lee and Hoy Yan both testified they still owed Lee Poo money.

1904 Aug 27 – Lee Poo was denied admittance and given two days to file an appeal. He filed an appeal.

1904 Sept 6 – Lee Poo told his lawyer that he thought his application for a certificate of departure and return was proof of note for his loans. He gave Bow Loy a slip of Chinese writing paper listing how much money he was owed by Jim Lee and Hoy Yun. It seems that Lee Poo did not understand he was being asked about a legal “promissory note” not just a note reminding him that he was owed money.

He was rejected “on the ground that the debts on which he sought to re-enter the United States were evidenced by promissory notes.”

1904 Sept 14 – The report of R. B. Scott, Chinese Inspector at Port Townsend, to the Inspector in Charge clarified that the monies due Lee Poo were for money borrowed and labor performed; they were not promissory notes. His Book of Debts Owed was offered as evidence of the debts owed by Hoy Yun and Jim Lee.  

“Book of Debts Due to Lee Poo,” CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Poo, Box RS 019, file RS 664.

Kwong Si  29  August 10,
Jim Lee, total balance due $500
         Lee Poo Count.

Kwong Si    29    August, form other book –
Total –
        28 year April 10
        Borrowed U.S. gold coin $600        
Both agree until next year when I come back.
       Huey Yan see Lee Poo count.
(Translated by Chin Kee, Chinese Interpreter)

This case file pertains to the Bayard-Zhang Treaty of 1888 and the 1888 Scott Act. To find out more about them, go to https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Scott_Act_(1888)#Scott_Act



Charley Dea Laundry Price Ticket – 1916 Chicago area

laborer's return certificate, photo, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chinese Laundry Ticket 1916
“Charley Dea Light-Grade Hand Laundry Price List,” ca. 1916, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Lee Chung Hing case file, Box RS 285, RS 34366.

In 1916 Lee Chung Hing, a laborer, applied to leave the United States from his home in Chicago, Illinois for a visit to China. His application for a laborer’s return certificate was rejected because he could not prove that he was a lawful resident of the United States. He had lived in the U.S. for about 36 years but did not have the required certificate of residence. When he originally entered the U.S. he was classified as a merchant. He presented his original merchant identification paper in 1916. It was not accepted.

John G. Sullivan, Immigration Inspector in Boston, interviewed those who Lee Chung Hing listed as his business partners at Quong Suey Lung Company in Boston in the 1890s. Chin Sing had been a partner of the firm for over thirty years but did not remember Lee Chung Hing. He had heard that Lee was a member of the firm but didn’t know him. Lee Chung Hing’s Caucasian witnesses, Luther Gaddis and William K. Jones, were both deceased by 1916. According to the inspector both witnesses had signed hundreds of affidavits for Boston Chinese years ago. They were not the most credible witnesses.

Lee Chung Hing was sixteen years old in 1880 when he first came to the United States. It was two years before the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. He lived in San Francisco as a merchant until about 1892, Boston for seven years, then Chicago where he was a laborer working in a laundry. Lee had a hard time getting the proper paper work for his return certificate. There was a lot of confusion about what documents were needed when the Act was first passed; Lee switched from being a merchant to a laborer; and different documents were required for each classification. Over thirty years had passed since he first arrived in the U.S. His witnesses couldn’t remember him and two had died.

On Lee’s application for a return certificate he claimed his friend of over twenty years, Dea Poon Suey borrowed $1050 from him to buy a laundry in Aurora, Illinois. In fact, the loan was only for $500. [The Scott Act 1888 severely restricted Chinese laborers who were already residing here from returning to China for visits. They could not reenter unless they owned property or held a business investment of $1,000 or more.1] The amount of his loan wasn’t enough to satisfy the law’s requirements. He did not have enough evidence to obtain a return certificate and was denied because lawful residence in the country had not been shown. He was giving the right to appeal. There is no indication that he appealed.

1 John Jung, Chinese Laundries: Tickets to Survival on Gold Mountain (Yin & Yang Press), 2007, 31.