In previous posts, I have given an overview of the immigration process for the Jue family on Angel Island in 1918. Transcripts of the investigation of Jue Joe's status as a merchant, testimony of Jue Joe, Lee Bing, Leong Shee , Sun Yeaw, and Sun Tong as well as their reexamination interviews have been presented in this blog. After all the testimony was given , a decision was made to allow the family to land. After 12 long years wife and sons were finally able to reunite with Jue Joe. A few words about our family name: In original immigration documents the family Chinese surname is always translated into English as Jew. Shortly after the family is allowed entry from Angel Island, Jew Joe changes the English version of the family name to Jue and he refers to himself as Jue Joe thereafter. In a Los Angeles Times article later in 1918 about the reunification of his family the family surname is Jue.
The Angel Island detention and investigation of the Jue family was relatively swift compared to some Chinese detainees who were kept on the island much longer. The Jue family arrived on Angel Island on April 24,1918 and were admitted to the United States on May 2, 1918, after a 9 day period of detention and investigation.
U.S. Department of Labor
May 1st 1918
Commissioner of Immigration,
Thru Inspector in Charge, Chinese Division,
Angel Island, California.
17119/10-2, Leong Shee, wife of Mer.
17119/10-3 ,Jew Sun Yeaw, Son of Mer.
17119/10-4, Jew Sun Tong, Son of Mer.
Ex. SS Columbia , April 24 , 1918
The alleged husband of applicant 10-2 and father of applicants 10-3 and 10-4 is the holder of a certificate of residence which shows his lawful residence. He has made one trip to China from 1902 to 1906, during which period his marriage to applicant 10-2 and the births of applicant 10-3 and 10-4 took place. The alleged father's mercantile status has been investigated by the Los Angeles office and is favorably reported upon by Inspector Brazie, of our Los Angeles office.
The evidence regarding the alleged relationship consists of the testimony of the alleged father, and the three applicants, and one identifying witness named Lee Bing. A comparison of the testimony of the alleged father, mother and two boys reveals no discrepancies which I consider of any significance.
The identifying witness states that the home of the applicants is the first house in the fourth row, and that it is one of the front houses in the village, whereas all the other witnesses agree that their home is the fourth house fourth row.
The identifying witness states that he took $50 from the alleged father to his family in China on each of the two occasions when he visited their home, namely on the last two trips, the first time from 1906 to 1907, and the second time from 1914 to 1915. Reference to the record of his return in 1915 shows that he was then asked if he had taken any money, letters or anything else from the United States to anyone in China and he answered : "$50 to Lee Lock's family" and that he did not mention taking any money to anyone else.
The identifying witness states that he visited the home of the applicants on only two occasions , once on his last trip and once on a previous trip. All three applicants state consistently that the identifying witness visited their home two or three times on each of the two trips.
I have noted a good family resemblance between the alleged father and applicant 10-3 and a fair family resemblance between alleged father and applicant 10-4. The appearance of the family as a whole is very satisfactory as also was their demeanor throughout the examination.
In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the testimony of the identifying witness is entitled to acceptance as truthful. Notwithstanding this fact, I am of the opinion that the testimony of the four members of this family is so circumstantial and in such close agreement that it must be held that their alleged relationship to one another is established.
Landing of all three applicants is recommended.