Tag Archives: San Francisco file

Wong Kuen Hue’s brief stay in West Minster, British Columbia

Recently Spencer Cheng of Los Angeles found a CEA blog post for his relative, Clement Joe, from the Mississippi Delta. This discovery got Spencer interested in finding other files on relatives. He has visited several National Archives branch facilities and obtained files on thirty-two family members.

This month’s blog entry is for Wong Kuen Hue. Wong Kuen Hue’s parents were Spencer’s great grandparents. Wong Kuen Hue’s father, Wong Hong Ping, was trying to send Wong Kuen Hue and his sister, Wong Lie How, to live with Jung Wing Chong, a merchant in New Westminster, British Columbia, because their mother was hospitalized after a still birth. Jung Wing Chong was the husband of the children’s older sister, Wong Lin Heung.

A historical black and white photograph of a family group. The image features a woman and a man seated together, with four children standing around them. The children are wearing traditional clothing and hats, and one child is holding a decorative plate. In the background, there are plants and a clock, adding a domestic setting to the portrait.
Wong family photo, 1909, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Wong Kuen Hue, Vancouver Box 54, File 2116.

This 1909 photo is of Wong Kuen Hue and his family. He was about one year old at the time. The notation on the photo says “applicant and Father and Mother and sisters.” The kids are playing with a toy consisting of a long stick with an attached mechanical butterfly and a wheel so it could be pushed. The wings of the butterflies probably flapped up and down.

A historical document featuring photographs of three individuals: Wong Hong Ping, a young boy named Wong Khean Hue, and a young girl named Wong Lie How, along with handwritten notes and legal language related to their residency and family information in California.
Wong Hong Ping affidavit, CEA case files, RG 85, NARA- Seattle, Wong Kuen Hue, Vancouver Box 54, File 2116.

Wong Hong Ping started getting the paperwork completed for the children’s trip to Canada. Wong’s December 1914 affidavit includes photos of himself and two of his children, Wong Kuen Hue, born March 1908, and Wong Lie How, February 1913. Both were both in California. Wong Lai How’s birth certificate is included in the file.

Wong Hong Ping was interviewed a month later. He testified that he had three sons by his first wife before she died, and six children by his second wife, Jeng Shee.

Witness R. S. Fletcher, president of the Bank of Watsonville and the Watsonville Savings Bank, swore in an affidavit that he had been a resident of Watsonville for more than forty years, knew Wong Hong Ping for six years, that Wong was the manager of Wong Yee Kee Co., and that Wong and his wife Jung Him were the parents of Wong Kuen Hue and Wong Lie How.

A Form 430, Application of Alleged American-Born Chinese for Preinvestigation of Status, for each child, with their photo, is included in the file. A document dated in March 1915, tells that the children, Wong Kuen Hue and Wong Lie How, born in Walnut Grove and Watsonville, California, respectively, and were being detained by Canadian immigration officers at Vancouver, B.C. pending an investigation regarding evidence that their father was a merchant or if there was some other accepted classification by the Canadian Chinese Exclusion laws that would allow the children to be admitted to Canada.

The children were staying in New Westminster, B. C. with Jung Wing Chong, a merchant and the husband of their older sister. Their father wanted them to go to school where both Chinese and English were taught. Although the children were issued a Form 430 by Immigration in San Francisco, and their father was a merchant in the United States, they had no status entitling them to admission under Canadian Chinese Exclusion law. The children were detained in Vancouver but released on bond pending arrangements for their return to their home in the United States. They received their “Action Sheet, Departure” forms in February 1915. They were returned to the U.S. in April 1916, accompanied by their brother-in-law, Jang Wing Chong, were admitted and received their certificates of identity.

The children were staying in New Westminster, B. C. with Jung Wing Chong, a merchant and the husband of their older sister. Their father wanted them to go to school where both Chinese and English were taught. Although the children were issued a Form 430 by Immigration in San Francisco, and their father was a merchant in the United States, they had no status entitling them to admission under Canadian Chinese Exclusion law. The children were detained in Vancouver but released on bond pending arrangements for their return to their home in the United States. They received their “Action Sheet, Departure” forms in February 1915. They were returned to the U.S. in April 1916, accompanied by their brother-in-law, Jang Wing Chong, were admitted and received their certificates of identity.

The next document in Wong Kuen Hue’s file is a report dated February 1932. It states the Wong had a Vancouver file #2116, San Francisco file #12017/30030, San Pedre file #30160/2, and that he visited New Westminster, Canada, once and China twice. He was issued a U.S. passport in 1921, cancelled in 1924, and spoke English fluently without any Chinese accent.

His 1932 sworn statement in his file states his American name was Frank Wang. His parents moved back to China and his mother died there. Under Chinese and American rites he married Liang Pei Yee, also called Mabel Ling. She was living in Shanghai, China with their son and daughter. He answered many more questions about his siblings. When he returned to the U.S., he worked for Dr. Bewster in the circulation department of the Evening Herald (probably in Los Angeles). He thought he would be working in the movies at MGM Laboratory, but it didn’t work out. He was applying to go back to Shanghai and thought his house there was probably destroyed by the Japanese.
There is no document in the file that tells when or if he left for China.

Lee Kim Hoy – rejected, appealed, admitted – Canton, Ohio

1924 Family Portrait of Lee Kim Hoy
“Lee Kim (Gim) Hoy family portrait,” 1924, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Lee Kim (Gim) Hoy case file, Seattle Box 768, 7030/11374.
1924 Family Portrait of Lee Kim Hoy, his mother, Hom Shee; his maternal uncle, Hom Jik; and his father, Lee Ben (Charley)
[This is a thick file.] Lee Kim Hoy, age 19, arrived in Seattle on 22 August 1938 on his way to join his father, Lee Ben, in Canton, Ohio. His status was listed as the son of U. S. citizen. He was denied entry on 14 October and finally admitted on 29 December more than four months after his date of arrival. The file contains two floor plans of the family home in Bow Ngin (Bo Yuen) Village, Hoy Ping District, China—one of the first floor and one of the second floor, an affidavit with photos of Lee Kim Hoy and his father, several witness statements and a family portrait. The immigration commissioner also reviewed three Seattle files and four San Francisco files of other family members.
When Lee Kim Hoy was first interrogated he was reminded that the burden of proof was on him to prove that he was not subject to exclusion under any provision of the immigration or Chinese exclusion laws. His father and brother testified on his behalf.
On day two of Lee Kim Hoy’s interrogation he was asked to describe his house in detail. Here is part of his answer:
“First floor contains four bedrooms, two parlors, two kitchens and a court; entire first floor paved with tile; court paved with cement and edge of stone; two outside doors, large door faces West; as you enter large door you go into kitchen, beyond kitchen is the court.”
He was asked to describe the windows in great detail—how many, what they are made of, and what direction they faced. Next he was asked about the bedrooms—who sleeps where, then to describe his school experience and his brother’s; to describe the village—the number of houses in each row and where the public buildings were located. He was asked about specific houses–“who lives in house on the 3rd lot, 2nd house and row from the head?”
There were many more questions; this interrogation was seven pages long. His father’s interrogation was six pages long and his brother’s was four pages. Lee Kim Hoy and his father, Lee Ben, were recalled for more questioning. They were asked about several discrepancies. The most serious one was that Lee Ben told them twice that he was single when he returned from China in 1918. In his 1938 interview he said that his son, Lee Kim Hoy, was born 3 May 1919. Lee Ben’s interrogators did not believe that Lee Kim Hoy was his son.
The conclusions of H. Z. Smith, the chairman of the inquiry, were three pages long. He noted that Lee Kim Hoy’s correct name was Lee Gim Hoy. His alleged father, Lee Ben (Charley), was born in New Orleans, Louisiana on 14 January 1902 and his birth certificate was included in his San Francisco file 17555/10-5. Lee Ben testified on two different occasions in 1918 that he had never been married. The chairman did not believe that the relationship between Lee Ben and Lee Kim Hoy had been satisfactorily established. Lee Kim Hoy was denied admission into the U.S. in October 1938 but given the option to appeal.
The application was reviewed by Immigration & Naturalization Service in Washington, D.C. Lee Gim Hoy’s attorneys were Edwards E. Merges of Seattle and Parker & Parker of Washington, D.C. A transcript of the appeal is not included in the file. Lee Kim Hoy was admitted on 29 December 1938.
Lee Kim (Gim) Hoy and Lee Ben affidavit photos
“Lee Kim (Gim) Hoy and Lee Ben affidavit photos,” 1938, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Lee Kim (Gim) Hoy case file, Seattle Box 768, 7030/11374.

[The similarities between the father and son in the 1924 portrait and the 1938 affidavit photos may have helped in the appeal.]