Petition to Land by Alien Applicant Mark Gou Yung
2/9/1906
Add to Favorites:
Add all page(s) of this document to activity:
Add only page 1 to activity:
Add only page 2 to activity:
Add only page 3 to activity:
Add only page 4 to activity:
Add only page 5 to activity:
Although a very small number of Chinese immigrants came to the United States prior to 1850, it wasn't until news of the gold strikes in California reached China that large numbers of Chinese men, eager to earn money, sailed for "Gum San," or the "gold mountain.” The early Chinese immigrants were begrudgingly accepted by Americans and were not the immediate targets of animosity or violence. The Chinese Exclusion Act, which, when passed in 1882, became the most devastating of all anti-Chinese legislation. It barred Chinese from entering the United States for 10 years, allowing only Chinese merchants, teachers, students, or travelers in, and only under strict regulations. It also required Chinese already residing in the United States to have a permit to reenter the country, and it granted all Chinese permanent alien status; this meant they could not become citizens. The Chinese Exclusion Act was extended two times, once in 1892 for an additional 10 years, and again in 1902 for an indefinite time period. It was finally repealed in 1943. Before the Chinese Exclusion Act the U.S. employed an open door policy for immigrants from all countries. However, once the Exclusion Act was passed, an attitude against foreigners began to develop. This document is featured in "The Chinese Exclusion Act: Researching in the National Archives," available on iBooks.
This Petition to Land for Mark Gou Yung includes a letter from his attorneys Ralston and Siddons arguing that their client should be considered an American and entitled to admission into the United States because he was living in Hong Kong under British, not Chinese, dominion. It also includes a letter from Acting Immigration Commissioner Crawford to the Commissioner-General of Immigration stating that Mark Gow Yung's appeal of his denial of entry into the United States should be dismissed, and a sworn statement of Mark Gow Yung's identity by Wong Q Hee and Lee Sing Sue.
This Petition to Land for Mark Gou Yung includes a letter from his attorneys Ralston and Siddons arguing that their client should be considered an American and entitled to admission into the United States because he was living in Hong Kong under British, not Chinese, dominion. It also includes a letter from Acting Immigration Commissioner Crawford to the Commissioner-General of Immigration stating that Mark Gow Yung's appeal of his denial of entry into the United States should be dismissed, and a sworn statement of Mark Gow Yung's identity by Wong Q Hee and Lee Sing Sue.
Transcript
"Honorable Frank P. Sargent, Commissioner of Immigration, Washington, D.C.Dear Sir:-
IN RE MARK GOW YUNG NO.10. CHINA. JANUARY 31. We have read with due consideration the report of the Examining Inspector. Mr. Kennah, in this case, and after a great deal of thought, find ourselves still somewhat mystified. Mr. Kennah says that the examination of the applicant shows that he is either poorly coached or very stupid. It might be seriously to his discredit for intelligence to be poorly coached, but if he were “very stupid” as we are prepared to admit is the fact, he might, unfortunately, still be that and yet born in the United States. In one, therefore, of the two possible contingencies which seem to exist, according to Mr. Kennah, our client, we respectfully submit, is entitled to admission.
Mr. Kennah states that “his appearance is not that of a person suffering from moral turpitude.” We have been considerably troubled to exactly understand this expression. We assume, however, that in Mr. Kennah’s opinion, a person who was afflicted with moral turpitude would exhibit “outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual” want of grace in this respect, and that this mental or moral condition would entail “suffering.” As it appears, however, that our client is free from any physical indication of “moral turpitude,” we must assume that he meets with Mr. Kennah’s approval and has been truthful. If he were a man who had been indulging in falsehood he would probably, according to Mr. Kennah’s view of the matter, exhibit the same in his “appearance.” It must, however, be manifest from an inspection of the record that the applicant is stupid, but as this is not a known reason for exclusion we submit that so far as this point is concerned, the applicant must be admitted, his case being supported by abundant evidence showing that he was born in the United States. His story, it is to be remarked, is strongly confirmed by the fact that the steamer records show that his mother, sister, and himself left San Francisco at the time fixed by him, and although the steamer records speak of him as born in China, this can be by no mean conclusive, being a record made up by some one not under oath, and not possessing any facilitates for investigation, and the probabilities all being, notwithstanding this statement, that he was born in California. A more serious question arises under Decision No. 60, but, although this be apparently serious, yet we submit that a careful examination of the facts shows that the applicant does not come under the rules laid down in that case. In that case a boy born in the Unites States of Chinese parents, leaving this country in his infancy for China and returning after majority, was held to have elected for his Chinese citizenship and to have surrendered by his long delay his right to be received as an American citizen. This applicant left when he was fifteen or sixteen years of age, and did not return to China, notwithstanding the Inspector’s report to this effect. The fair reading of his evidence and that of the opinion, shows that the applicant has been living for years in Hong Kong, which, while geographically a part of China, is, in point of fact, under British dominion. As a resident of Hong Kong he could not elect between Chinese and American citizenship; neither could he by the mere fact of residence from some time after birth, acquire the position of a British subject. Never having, therefore, elected against an American citizenship, he must be considered as an American and admitted.
There are confusions in the testimony in one or two places which arise from evident mistakes on the part of the interpreter. For instance, he has used the word “brother” on several occasions when the proper translations from Chinese would manifestly have been “cousin.” This is particularly noticeable where the translator makes that the applicate speak of a “distant brother”. Of course, the applicant really said “cousin” all the while. The fact that this error as the use of the word “brother” exists not once but three or four consecutive times, should, we think, make on chary of accepting other supposed contradictions.
Very respectfully yours.
Ralston & Siddons"
This primary source comes from the Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
National Archives Identifier: 19086638
Full Citation: Petition to Land by Alien Applicant Mark Gou Yung; 2/9/1906; Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Record Group 85. [Online Version, https://docsteach.org/documents/document/petition-to-land-by-alien-applicant-mark-gou-yung, May 19, 2024]Rights: Public Domain, Free of Known Copyright Restrictions. Learn more on our privacy and legal page.