special Projects
Research and writing about the Geary Act
The Certificate of Fong Chow. Or, of Someone Else?
by Dr. Gordon H. Chang, Department of History, Stanford University
This certificate of residence has been thought to be that of my grandfather, Fong Chow (aka Suey Chung, Fong Poymun, Fang Peiwen). His eldest son, my uncle Taft, gave it to me as part of a collection of documents handed down from grandfather. A quick look raises no questions, but a closer inspection raises all sorts of issues.
The name on the document, and the envelope that contained it, is “Fong Chew”, not Fong Chow. It says he was a laborer (but also a “tailor”) residing in Seattle, Washington. The main account of his life, based on interviews with Fong Chow, is China Gold (1954) by Theresa A. Sparks, and in it, she records that Fong Chow lived in California in the 1890s. He had arrived in Canada from China in 1882, the year of the passage of the Restriction Act, and made his way down to Sacramento several months later. He then moved to the Gold Country. There is no other evidence that he ever resided in Seattle. The certificate also lists his age as thirty-five years, which would have him born in 1857. Other evidence, including Chinese sources, has his birthday as 1868/69.
The image in the photograph attached to the document could be my grandfather, whom I never met, or it might not be. There is a photo of him on his wedding day in 1901 in Nevada City that is reproduced in China Gold. There is a resemblance, but it is unclear whether the two images are of the same man. The residence certificate lists the man’s height as five foot, ten inches, which is generally consistent with Fong Chow’s who was known to be tall and thin and six feet tall. The certificate mentions a “scalp scar above forehead.” We know of no other description of Fong Chow’s body that includes mention of the injury.
​
Then there is the name, Fong Chew and Fong Chow are clearly different, but then there the issue of when grandfather used the name “Fong Chow.” According to China Gold grandfather went by the name of Suey Chung well into the 1890s. According to Sparks, he used the name “Fong Chow” only after he married in 1901. The elaborate wedding procession that brought his bride, Lonnie Tom, from Marysville for the marriage in Nevada City and related activities are colorfully recorded in local newspapers. Fong Chow had established himself as a businessman and leader of the Chinese community in the area and his marriage was major local news.
What to make of these anomalies and contradictions? One explanation is that all of them are simply errors in testimony and recording. Records from these years about Chinese are full of mistakes because of language differences, Chinese unfamiliarity with government procedures and requirements, Chinese evasion, and white ignorance of Chinese ways.
Another explanation is that the real Fong Chow, at some point in his life, obtained the certificate for his own use if he was ever detained or had to show legal residence in the U.S. He had no documents from his entry into North America. He died in the U.S. in 1948, never returning to China in his lifetime, even though he sent sons back to the village for education and kept in close contact with relatives. He may never have wanted to risk leaving the U.S. for fear of not being able to return because of the absence of solid documentation of legal status.
Fong Chow/Fong Chew’s certificate of residence, whether it is authentic of the person who wound up holding it, is a fascinating document that once again reminds us of the challenges of understanding early Chinese American history and the precariousness of life that our predecessors faced.