• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 Anna Naruta Re Notice of Intent to Landmark  for 1966-68 and 1972 San Pablo Ave June 12, 2005
-- 1
June 12, 2005Landmarks Preservation Advisory BoardCity of OaklandCommunity and Economic Development Agency250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Suite 3315Oakland, CA 94612Re: Proposed landmarking of 1966-1968 and 1972 San Pablo Avenue--Hing Chong & Co.Dear Landmarks Boardmembers:I am writing in support of the Notice of Intent to Landmark the owner initiated for 1966-1968 and 1972 San Pablo Avenue. These two historic structures are over one hundredyears old and are associated with significant social patterns and events in Oakland andCalifornia history. The remainder of this letter provides additional information on thesignificance and historical associations of what has been known as Dr. Theo. Olmsteadbuilding / Hing Chong & Co. and Muller tailor / J. Rankin plumbing shop. I urge you totake action to allow the historic value of these buildings to be recognized.SIGNIFICANCEToday, 1966-1968 and 1972 San Pablo Ave are the only survivors of a thriving Chinesegarment district that formed along San Pablo Avenue near City Hall in the late nineteenthand early twentieth century. Hing Chong & Co. occupied 1966-68 San Pablo Ave from1906 through 1923 (Fong 2005). 1972 San Pablo Ave, Muller’s residence and tailor shopby 1893, also housed an associated service industry: the 1902 Sanborn map labeled it a“hand laundry” (OCHS files). The two buildings, which share some structural features,are significant as representatives of early 20
th
century social life and commerce andprovide a window into the long history of an integrated, multi-ethnic Oakland.1966-68 and 1972 San Pablo Ave are additionally significant for being the immediatesuccessor buildings to the “official” Chinatown designated in 1867 on San Pablo Avenueafter the previous “official” Chinatown--established north of 14th Street on what wouldbecome the site of the northward extension of Broadway--was that year destroyed by fire(Naruta 2004, 2005; Chew 1952). A recent draft archaeological plan by Archeo-Tec notesthe rich archaeological potential for the San Pablo Avenue Chinatown (Pastron andVanderslice 2005). This Chinatown site is also significant as a window into interethnicrelations, as it was established on the land of Irish immigrant Edmund Hogan, who hadimmigrated during the Gold Rush and remained a resident on his San Pablo Avenueproperty from at least the 1860s until his death in the 1880s (Naruta 2005). Thesignificance of these buildings in the resilience of Chinese and Chinese Americans inOakland continues: According to the OCHS, a three-person “oriental” household wasrecorded for 1966-1968 San Pablo Ave in the 1936 WPA survey.May 2005 marked the new discovery of these buildings’ significance as the survivors of theturn-of-the-century Chinese garment district along San Pablo Ave near City Hall. Thediscovery was made as Kelly Fong (2005) completed a research project that used theSanborn maps, the
1882 Wells, Fargo Directory of Chinese Businesses
, and a sample of the Chinese-
 
 Anna Naruta Re Notice of Intent to Landmark  for 1966-68 and 1972 San Pablo Ave June 12, 2005
-- 2
Exclusion era Chinese Partnership and Immigration files in the National Archives todiscover new information about early Chinese Oaklanders. The significance of the site of the buildings as the location designated for the “official” Chinatown and the richarchaeological potential of the site (LSA 2003, 2004; Naruta 2005; Pastron and Vanderslice2005) was likewise unknown when the OCHS survey evaluated the area.In 1882, following lobbying by a number of prominent whites, including the RepublicanGovernor of California, George C. Perkins, the Chinese Exclusion Act, a set of regulationsdesigned to bar from entry into the United States as many persons of Chinese nationality ordescent as possible (Chinn, et al., 1969). Chinese nationals and Chinese Americans--aswell as anyone immigration inspectors thought appeared to have Chinese ancestry--weredetained at ports of entry for often-extensive examinations. Applicants for entry (or re-entry) also had to provide supporting evidence backing their claim to being entitled toexemption from the Chinese Exclusion Act. Their testimony had to match that of supporting witnesses, and it had been decreed they must supply at least two whitewitnesses to come in and swear testimony on their behalf. The Chinese Exclusion lawsofficially ended in 1942, but through quotas were de facto in effect until 1969.The intensive examinations carried out to implement the Chinese Exclusion laws were alltranscribed and signed. Today they’re preserved in the National Archives, where theyprovide a mountain of evidence of long-standing racial discrimination against Chinese andChinese Americans. They also provide the researcher a terrible wealth of information.The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act specified merchants were allowed entry or re-entry,provided they proved their status and never engaged in anything that could be construedas labor. Sometimes extensive case files would be built up about companies and theirpartners. One such set of files has preserved the profile and activities of the merchanttailoring company Hing Chong & Co., 1966-68 San Pablo Ave., Oakland.
Hing Chong & Co.
From official government documents we learn Hing Chong & Co. formed in 1906, afterthe SF earthquake and fire (case file 10362/212). In 1908 it reorganized, and the sameyear manager Wong Yow filed the list of Chinese business partners attached to the Noticeof Intent to Landmark (13532/141). The record contains his portrait, which was arequired submission, and a list of all the partners at that time, giving their names in bothRomanized and Chinese versions. (Note the same building has been assigned both 1966-68 San Pablo Ave and 564-566 San Pablo Ave, due to San Pablo Avenue’s multiple addressnumbering systems.)With the government requiring Chinese business partners to examinations, cross-examinations, and providing corroborative witnesses, we today have very detailed info onoperation of Hing Chong & Co. A July 22, 1914, statement shows the hours of operationwere from 8 AM to 9 or 10 PM (15077/5-19). The question “Who operates themachines?” reveals “One white man does the cutting and three Chinese operate themachines (15077/5-19).” Hing Chong & Co.’s capital stock in 1914 totaled $12,000,and their rent for 1966-68 San Pablo Ave was $80 per month (15077/5-19). They did$32,000 worth of business in 1913, and paid annual dividends of $140 for each $1000
 
 Anna Naruta Re Notice of Intent to Landmark  for 1966-68 and 1972 San Pablo Ave June 12, 2005
-- 3
share.Further information is preserved about the individual partners. Early partner Hor Lung,whose photo from a 1914 document is attached, earned a monthly salary of $400 plusexpenses (15077/5-19). This was the same as the bookkeeper, Chun Too. The manager,Wong Yow, was salaried at $600.Records of Hing Chong & Co. also begin to illuminate their network of business relations.1914 affidavits note they buy their goods from “Reese Bros. Kearny St. and Dittmar onGeary St (15077/5-19).” In navigating the seemingly endless hurdles of ChineseExclusion legislation, they employed the renowned lawyer Geo. A. McGowan, of 550Montgomery, SF (9/15/1921; McClain 1994).Even more detail of their operations emerges from the government files. On November 9,1921, an Angel Island Immigration inspector visited the store to check up on how muchgoods were in stock ( 22492/4-26). His enumeration of precise yardages and quantitiesof buttons is reproduced in the attached facsimile of his report. The same file brings uspartner Chow Hoy’s report to the Immigration Inspectors on how the store works. HisOct 3, 1921, deposition is attached.That we have the depositions of this partner of Hing Chong & Co. is all the moreremarkable when we learn that Chow Hoy wasn’t a Chinese immigrant at all. He was bornat 722 Jackson Street, San Francisco, yet had to go through the immigration interrogationsmultiple times including 1898 (at age 22), 1906, and 1914 (9649-328; 22492/4-26;15077/5-19).As with all those subjected to the enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion legislation, ChowHoy always had to provide corroboration from at least two “White Witnesses.” Themerchants of Hing Chong & Co. had to bring two whites to swear statements to theinspectors. Though the immigration bureau had earlier recognized him to be a native-born Chinese American, in a Sept 24, 1921, Statement of White Witness,” we find ChowHoy again subjected to having to justify an exemption to the Chinese Exclusion legislation:“From your observation of the applicant, covering the period of the past 12 months, areyou fully convinced that he is entitled to be classed as a merchant as the law defines theterm “Merchant”?“Yes, I am. I always see him in the store waiting on customers and I have been told thathe is a partner in the firm of Hing Chong & Co., 1966 San Pablo Ave., Oakland.”statement of Harry A. Harmon, Sept 24, 1921. (22492/4-26)Thank you for your work to recognize this important part of Oakland's heritage!Sincerely,Anna NarutaHistorical Archaeologisthttp://UptownChinatown.org
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...