“Lai Hing,Consular Certificate” 1919, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Lai Hing (Ow Dun Poy), Box 889, File 7032/518.
In November 1919 Lai Hing, age 55, was filing papers for a laborer’s return certificate, Form 432. His witness, Lee Wing, presented his Certificate of Residence #28505 issued in New York City in March 1894. Lee Wing borrowed $1,000 from Lai Hing, paid in silver and bills, to buy a laundry business in Plainfield, New Jersey.
Lai Hing also presented his Certificate of Residence #43340, issued at Portsmouth, New Hampshire in March 1894. It was examined and returned to him. He first arrived in the United States in 1882 in San Francisco just after the Act had passed and before papers were required. Lai Hing’s marriage name was Jew She and his wife had bound feet. They had two children, a married daughter, Ah Me, age 24, and a son, Ng Gee Shung, age 13. Lai Hing’s application was approved and he received a Consular Certificate with his photo attached.
Lai Hing returned in October 1920 at the Port of Seattle and was admitted, and he returned to his home in New York City. Lai Hing went through the process of applying to make another trip to China as a nonquota immigration in December 1924. Much of the information he gave was the same as his earlier application. He had loaned Lee Loy $1,000 paid in $100 dollar bills. Loy was a carpenter at 17 Mott Street in New York City. Correspondence from New York Immigrant Inspector refers to Lai Hing as Lai Jing but the other information agrees with the rest of the file.
Lai Hing returned in December 1925. His next trip was in October 1930. He was now sixty years old. He was a laundryman at Charley Sing Laundry in Plainfield, New Jersey. Lai Hing did not return within the statutory one-year period, so his certificate of residence was cancelled.
When Sullivan T. Mar, a Chinese citizen, entered the United States in 1927 his status was as a student with a diplomatic passport.
This section of the Chinese Exclusion Act applied to him: SEC.13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned and shall exempt them and their body and house- hold servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.1
Sullivan T. Mar (Teh-Chien Mar) was the Chancellor of Chinese Consulate in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. On 11 January 1927 he traveled from Vancouver by train stopping in Blaine, Washington before arriving in Seattle. He was thirty-one years old and was born in Foochow, China. He had a diplomatic passport issued by the Chinese Consulate in Vancouver and a U.S. passport issued by the American Consulate General. According to the Bureau of Immigration in Washington, D.C. since Mar was admitted as an official, he was not required to comply with the rules governing alien students even though he had originally been admitted as a student at the University of Washington.
Mar made a short visit to Vancouver on 17 July 1928. The Immigration Service office in Seattle gave him a one-page certificate for identification. It contained his photo and signature and was only valid for one week for his readmission through the Port of Seattle. It could not be used as a certificate of residence or certificate of landing. He returned the next day and was admitted with his diplomatic passport.
“Immigration Service Correspondence, Re: Sullivan T. Mar,” 1928, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Sullivan T. Mar, Seattle Box 837, file 7031/120
Although there is no more official immigration activity in Sullivan T. Mar’s file, an undated newspaper clipping was inserted into his file. Mar wrote to the editor of the Seattle Daily Times regarding the September 1931 Japanese Imperial Army invasion of Manchuria, China.
Japan had suffered heavy financial losses from the 1929 Great Depression and Manchuria was rich in natural resources, forests and fertile farmland. Japan had already invested in Manchurian railroads and wanted to expand their holdings in China. These activities led to the 2nd Sino-Japanese War which began in 1937 when China began full-scale resistance to the expansion of Japanese influence in its territory.2
Mar wrote a letter to the editor because he disagreed with a speech Dr. Herbert H. Gowan had given on 18 December 1931 at the Lions’ Club concluding that Japan’s military activities were not an act of aggression. Mar was a former student of Dr. Gowan at the University of Washington. He respected Gowan’s knowledge of “Orient history” but thought Gowan was ill-informed about the current conditions. Mar listed six points of disagreement in Dr. Gowan’s stance. Mar listed Japan’s 1915 Twenty-0ne Demands, the large number of troops entering Manchuria, President Wilson’s response to the demands, Japan’s demand that China recognize the demands, Japan setting up a puppet government in Mukden, and Dr. Gowan presumption that he had more knowledge of the situation than the United States government and League of Nations. Mar suggested American business interests should consult with the reports on file at the State Department and the Department of Commerce for a history of Japan’s activities to control trade in Manchuria.
“Letters From Times Readers: Japan Intentions,” Seattle Daily Times, Seattle, WA, 31 December 1931, p6.
He signed his letter S. T. Mar [Sullivan T. Mar]. A handwritten note beside the newspaper clipping states, “One S. J. Mar has an oriental shop in Shafer Building—across from F & N [Frederick & Nelson]. Also Telephone Book shows S. J. Mar 700 – 8th Ave.”
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.
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.
“Jew Men File,” Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Jew Men, Seattle Box 861, file 7031/647. ↩︎
“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.
Lee Kim How was the wife of Ng Sen Wing, the subject of the July 2023 blog entry.
Lee Kim How went to China in 1920 with her parents and three of her siblings when she was eight years old. She returned in 1932 as a married woman.
“Lee Kim How, Form 430,” 1920, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle Box 416, 7030/3463.
Her father, Lee Fong, presented a 1912 Acknowledgment of Report of Birth to Immigration officials and obtained a 1920 transcript of her birth to assure her entry into the United States when they returned. Her name on the report is shown as Mary Lee Foong (Kim Han Foong). [Lee Kim How ‘s Americanized name was Mary Lee Foong. She also appears sometimes as Kim Han Foong. Her name throughout her file is usually Lee Kim How.]
“Lee Foong, Acknowledgment of Report of Birth,” 1912, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.
Her father obtained a transcript of her birth record before they left for China in 1920.
Mary Lee Foong, Transcript #3437 of birth record, Health Department, District of Columbia, 8 July 1920, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.
Their physician, Mary A. Parsons, testified in 1932 that she delivered all six of the Fong Children. Their mother was hospitalized but she would be released for the trip. The older four children went to China with their parents.
Lee Kim How (Mary Lee Foong) arrived at the Port of Seattle on 13 January 1932. She was 19 years old and was accompanied by her husband, Ng Sen Wing. Their destination was Jacksonville, Florida. She had not seen her father since 1921. Two of her brothers and her father were interviewed about her status. They said Lee Kim How’s mother had been institutionalized before they left for China in 1920. When Lee Kim How was asked questions about her father, she said she did not know much about him, that her mother was well and had not been confined to an institution of any kind. She was asked over and over if her mother had been seriously ill and incapable of taking care of her and her siblings. She said her mother always took care of them.
The file contains over 195 pages of documents and interviews. Her father, her siblings, and her husband were interviewed several times. Others in the family testified that the mother was sick and institutionalized and that the two younger daughters were put in an orphanage for a short time. The family moved several times in the D.C. area during this period. Not everyone agreed about the exact street address they were living at certain dates. They gave different dates for Lee Kim How’s wedding and what year she had her ears pierced.
Lee Gum (Gim) Wah, an older brother of Lee Kim How, testified that they were very poor and that their father gave two of the younger daughters away or put them in an orphanage before the rest of the family left for China. He said that Lee Kim How spent some time in the orphanage, but he did not know how long she was there.
In the summary of the case the Immigration Inspector said that some of the father’s testimony did not agree with the statements he originally gave when he came into the U.S. in 1894 but they were more concerned with his statements about his daughter. The father did not recognize his daughter’s photo. She was eight or nine years old when he last saw her and now she was 19. He thought he wasn’t able to recognize her because she had changed considerably when she was sick shortly after returning to China and later fell and lost two front teeth.
Several times in the file, there is a list of records examined but it never includes the Acknowledgment of Report of Birth or the Transcript from the Record of Births for Mary Lee Foong (Kim How Foong).
Photos of Kim How Foong were taken in 1932 when she returned. One view was straight on and the other was a side view with her hair pulled back so you could see her ear.
“Lee Kim How photos, 1932,” CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.
After several interviews with Lee Kim How, Immigration Inspector Doyas, had already accumulated 90 pages of interviews on her. He was dismayed that she could not remember many details about her life in Washington, D.C where she lived until she was eight years old—she could not answer questions about her father’s business, her toys, the names of the nearby streets, her school’s name, etc. Her interrogators tried to get her to speak English but she would only say words that she probably learned in detention.
On 26 March 1932 the Board of Inquiry unanimous rejected Lee Kim How’s application for admittance into the United States saying her case appeared to be entirely fraudulent. They thought she had a remarkable lack of knowledge of her life in the U.S. even though she lived in the U.S. until she was eight and one-half years old. Her father testified that the family moved to a new apartment several months before the family moved to China. Lee Kim How did not know the new address. [This could have been because she had been put in an orphanage for a few months before they left for China. There is no indication in the file that they reviewed the information at the orphanage for the dates she was in residence.]
The Committee believed that: a. The girl in the 1920 Form 430 photo had pierced ears. Lee Kim How said her ears were pierced a few years after she arrived in China. b. The ears in the 1920 photo were a different shape than the ears of the girl seeking admission into the U.S. in 1934. c. The ears of the applicant were pierced higher on the lobe and closer to the cheek than the ears of the girl on the 1920 Form 430. d. The photos showed that the girls had “two different natures.” The upper lip was different. e. They thought she should be able to speak more English than she demonstrated during the interviews.
After Lee Kim How was rejected, her attorney, Fred H. Lysons, requested an appeal. While they were waiting for that decision, Dr. Raymon E. Seth, U.S. Public Health Service physician, recommended that Lee Kim How have a tooth extracted. She and her husband decided to wait until her case was settled.
Ng Sen Wing, Lee’s husband, applied for and was granted a release from detention for several one-hour sessions to visit with his wife. They were always accompanied by an Immigration Station matron.
The family requested a two-week delay for Lee’s deportation so that members of her family could accompany her to China.
On 14 May 1938, there was a stay of deportation so more photographs could be taken of Lee with her ears in the same position as the 1920 Form 430 photo.
“Photos of Lee Kim How,” 1932, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Lee Kim How, Seattle 7030/3463.
On 5 July 1932, after a review of the new photos the appeal was dismissed and Lee Kim How was scheduled for deportation after almost six months of detention at the Port of Seattle. The reason listed was “birth in United States not established.” [It is not clear why her District of Columbia report of birth was not considered. It is hard to understand why U.S. Immigration spent so much time and manpower to keep this woman out of the U.S.]
The reference sheet in her file includes a listing of names and file numbers for her father, husband, a brother, a sister, son, mother- and father-in-law, several brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, nieces and a nephew.
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, 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.]
Amy Chin knew her grandfather entered the United States through the Port of Seattle in 1911. While searching for more records on him, she found he had been in northeastern New York state near the Adirondacks by 1903. She found more information about him in a jail ledger at a museum in Port Henry, New York, near the Canadian border. Read about Amy Chin’s discovery of the jail ledgers and her collaboration with the NYSCA Museum Program, Iron Center Museum, Town of Moriah Historical Society, North Star Underground Railroad Museum, and the Museum of Chinese in America, and how they got the jail ledgers digitized and available online. Thank you to Amy Chin and everyone involved in the project for making this information available to families and researchers.
Here’s the story. You can see the 719 images at MoCA’s online archive. The ledgers belong to the Iron Center Museum/Port Henry-Moriah Historical Society in Port Henry, NY. They and the Museum of Chinese in America (MoCA) in New York City jointly own the digitized records.
Lee Quong On’s entry in the jail ledgers
Lee Quong On’s file featured on April 29, 2019 blog post, contains information from 1901 to 1941. After hearing about the jail ledgers from the Port Henry area and that they were digitized, I searched and found an entry for Lee Quong On.
In early 1901 Lee Quong On left China. He arrived in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; then took a train to Montreal, Quebec and made his way to Burke, Franklin County, New York. He was immediately arrested. On 15 March 1901, he was brought before Hon. William V. S. Woodward, U.S. Commissioner of Plattsburgh, N. Y. and charged with unlawfully being in the U.S. A trial was held. He and three witness: Chin Sing, Chin Dan and Tsao Dong, testified in his favor. The evidence was considered, the charges were cleared, and Lee was released. He received his discharge certificate with his photograph attached in August 1901 at Port Henry, New York from Fred W. Dudley, a United States Commissioner, Northern District of New York. For the complete post, see https://chineseexclusionfiles.com/2019/04/29/lee-quong-on-1901-discharge-papers/
Lee Quong (On), the jail ledger at the Iron Center Museum/Port Henry-Moriah Historical Society in Port Henry, NY. He is the top entry on page 49. (These are copies of the same image; the second is darker so you can read all of the words.)
Loui See Fung 雷樹宏 arrived at the Port of Seattle on the s.s.Princess Marguerite on 11 January 1941. He was classified as the son of citizen, Loui Guee (Louie Gwee) (married name: Woon Jing). He was admitted exactly one month later and received his Certificate of Identity on 14 February. His destination was El Paso, Texas. He was nineteen years old, born on 20 September 1921 at Ai Lat Village, Hoy San District, China. According to Dr. Seth, the Medical Examiner of Aliens, the applicant appeared to be younger than he claimed. X-rays might give a more accurate assessment, but the immigration board decides that it was not necessary. The father presented a photo of the applicant when he was about five years old. There was a strong resemblance between the alleged father and the applicant.
Loui See Fung’s father, Loui Guee, originally arrived in the United States in October 1913 and was admitted as the son of a native, Loui Yim, who was subject to San Francisco file 10346/1433.
In Loui See Fung’s interrogation he testified that he spoke the See Yip Hoy San dialect and had never been in the United States before. His family moved to Ping On village when he was four or five years old. He last saw his father when he was about eight years old, but he readily identified him from a photograph because he remembered that his father had a scar on his forehead which showed in the photo. The interrogator asked many questions about his father’s extended family. Loui See Fung answered most of the questions correctly and was asked if he had been coached with the answers. It was a long interrogation with over five pages of testimony. He described his mother as Yee Shee, natural feet, some pock marks on her face, able to read and write, mother of four sons and no daughters. He told the names and ages of his brothers and where they went to school. He described his village and the nearby villages, the streams, a fishpond, markets, and school. Loui See Fung lived in a brick house with two bedrooms, a living room, two kitchens with a room over each kitchen, cement floors in all the rooms, all closed by glass and iron bars, no shutters, and two outside doors. They had a black dog but no pig. He was asked about specific houses in his village—”who lives opposite your door in the 3rd house, 2nd row?” and the names of the occupants, their ages, occupations, children’s names and ages, and where they went to school.
There was a lengthy interview of Loui’s father, Loui Guee. He stated that for the last ten years, he was a partner in a restaurant at Alamosa, Colorado. He was asked how he could identify his son if he had not seen him in about eleven years. He said, “I recognize him because he is my son. The photograph looks like him.” He chose the correct photo of his son out from more than ten photos. He testified that he had two brothers, Loui Fee in Oxnard, California, and Loui Wing in Ogden, Utah. He gave additional details about the family home. It had a stone court, a shrine on the second floor, and a balcony with a wood floor over each first-floor bedroom. They had three ancestral tablets.
“Louie Guee Affidavit, King County, Wash.,” 4 Sept 1940, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Loui See Fung case file, file 7030/13488.
Most of the testimony of the father and son agreed completely. Although Loui See Fung said his destination was El Paso, Texas, and his father lived in Alamosa, Colorado; the interrogator ignored this inconsistency. The other differences were minor. The doctor testified that the applicant appears to be younger than his stated age, but it was not enough to reject the applicant. Loui See Fung was admitted and received his Certificate of Identity.
[The National Archives is still closed because of COVID-19. This file was copied before March 2020. thn]
Woo Quin Lock was born on 3 March 1920 at Kwong Tung, China. He was the son of a U.S. citizen. He arrived at the Port of Seattle on 2 February 1940 on the Princess Charlotte. He was denied admittance on 12 April 1940. His case was appealed on 10 May, and he was admitted on 10 August, more than eight months after his arrival. He received his Certificate of Identity No. 83265 two days later. The exhibits submitted in his case were an affidavit by his father, Woo Yen Tong, three letters written by the applicant to his father and their translations, a sample of the applicant’s handwriting, four Woo Seattle case files and eight San Francisco files for various Woos.
Woo Quin Lock’s father, Woo Yen Tong, swore in an affidavit that he was a United States citizen and that he had proved his citizenship to the Immigration Service after his arrival at the Port of San Francisco on 14 August 1911 and was issued a Certificate of Identity No. 4752. Three photos were attached to his affidavit.
Woo Quin Kwock, Woo Quin Lock, probably Woo Koon Sang Son: Woo Quin Lock; Father: Woo Yen Tong
“Woo Yen Tong, affidavit,” 1939, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Woo Quin Lock case file, Seattle Box 805, file 7030/12841.
During his 1940 testimony, Woo Quin Lock testified that his father sent him $1,200 in Hong Kong currency to cover his travel expenses. Chin Thick Gee a member of the Mow Fon Goon store in Hong Kong, purchased his ticket for him. His father owned two houses and a social hall in Wan Jew village. Overnight visitors stayed in the social hall which was the 8th house, 9th row, counting from the north. Gar Theung and Gar Thin, sons of his paternal uncle Get Tong were living in the building while they were guests of the family in 1938. The family owned an old house on the north side and a new house on the south side. The interrogator told Woo Quin Lock that his testimony about some of his uncles and cousins and the location of the houses did not agree with his father’s and brother’s testimony.
The case file contains more than sixty pages of documents and testimony. The following is an excerpt from the summary written by the Immigration Committee Chairman:
The alleged father, Woo Yen Tong, was originally admitted at San Francisco in 1909 as the foreign-born son of a native, Woo Gap.
Woo Yen Tong returned to China in 1919. He married Chen Shee and their son; Woo Quin Lock was born before he returned to the United States. He made several trips to China and four sons were born. Woo Quin Lock’s younger brother, Woo Quin Kwock arrived from China in 1939 and was admitted. He was a witness for Woo Quin Lock.
There were many discrepancies between the testimony of the applicant and his brother about their method and date of travel to Hong Kong, where they stayed on the way, and when they got there. The brothers did not agree on when and where their alleged younger brother attended school.
The interrogation committee decided that the relationship between Woo Quin Lock and his father and brother could not be established. They denied Lock admission to the United States, but he had the right to appeal. The case was reopened in April 1940 to reconsider the citizenship of the alleged father. Woo Yen Tong’s brother was called to testify. Woo Fong Tong (marriage name Sik Kew) presented his Certificate of Identity #10738 which was issued to him in San Francisco in 1913. He testified that he was forty-four, born (ca. 1894) in Wan Jew village, Toy San district, China. He was a laborer living in the Chicago Hotel in Spokane, Washington. He made two trips to China in 1921 and 1929 and returned through the port of San Francisco. He identified the photos that were attached to Fook Yen Tong’s affidavit and a photo of their father, Woo Gap, from his 1921 Certificate of Identify that was included in his San Francisco file. He correctly identified all the Woo photos from the Seattle and San Francisco files.
Woo Fong Tong described the burial ceremony for his father Woo Gap (the transcriber made a note that Gap was pronounced NGIP). Woo Gap died in 1929 and Woo Fong Tong took his remains, his whole body, not just his bones, back to China in a regular wooden casket which was placed in a wooden box lined with tin. After their arrival in Wan Jew village the shipping box was removed, and the casket was placed outside the village for a day for visitation by the family. Then the casket was opened briefly to give everyone one last look at the body. They had a regular burial procession with the whole family accompanying the casket to the burial place at Fong Ngow hill, about 2 lis (less than a mile) north of Wan Jew village. After Woo Gap was buried, the family worshipped at his grave.
Woo Gap was married three times and his father was married twice. There was much testimony in the case file about whether the Woo men were stepsons or half-brothers.
In May 1940, P. J. Hansen, wrote a reference letter for Woo Yen Tong, who he called Raymond Woo. Hansen stated that Woo had worked for him for nine years as cannery foreman and he considered him a conscientious and trustworthy employee. He offered his assistance in getting Woo’s son admitted to the United States.
The legal brief for the appeal on behalf of Woo Quin Lock conceded that Woo Quin Lock was a foreign-born son of Woo Yen Tong but left open the question of his father’s citizenship of the United States. Woo Yen Tong derived his citizenship through his father, Woo Gap. Woo Gap and his second wife Lee Shee were the parents of Woo Yen Tong. Woo Gap married Lee Shee before the death of his first wife which was legal under Chinese law and custom. Woo Gap’s first wife, Chow Shee, the mother of his four sons, was ill for many years and required constant care. Woo Gap’s second wife moved into the household and cared for Chow Shee and the children. Woo Yen Ton was the son of Woo Gap and Woo’s second wife, Lee Shee. He was born before Woo’s first wife died.
Woo Quin Lock’s attorney, Edward E. Merges, brought forward a May 1918 letter written by Philip B. Jones, Immigration Officer at San Francisco to the Commissioner of Immigration at Angel Island stating the merits Woo Gap’s status as a merchant (one of the exemptions to the Exclusion Act). Woo Gap was born in the United States, a merchant in Santa Cruz, California, and well-known by the community and the immigration station. He resided with his wife and their son Woo Yen Tong. They provided a home and schooling for their son which Immigration authorities thought was sufficient proof of their relationship. They were also impressed that Woo Gap was honest about his dual marriage. Woo Yen Tong’s case was submitted to the Central Immigration Office in Washington, D.C. and it was determined that Woo Gap was a citizen of the United States. His son, Woo Yen Tong, had been admitted as the son of a citizen. Finally, after an eight-month legal battle, Woo Quin Lock was admitted as the son a citizen on 20 August 1940. His new residence was 725 King Street, Seattle, Washington.
