Researched and written by Aiza Bragg

Lee Fee (~1850–?) was a prominent member of New York’s Chinese American community during the late 1800s. He was married to a German woman and had four children, including a daughter who married a Chinese man in the early 1890s [1] [2]. Lee Fee also had a distinctive personal style, with one reporter noting “he wears his hair pompadour style, and [is] attired in a gray suit and lavender negilgee [sic] shirt, with a light pearl scarf” when Lee Fee appeared in court in 1894 [3]. Situated in the heart of Manhattan’s Chinatown, Lee Fee lived in the 26 Mott St. tenement in 1894 [4] and on the second floor of 24 Mott St. in 1896 [5]. He claimed to have been living in New York since the 1870s [1].

Above drawing of Lee Fee appeared on July 19, 1894 in an article by The Montreal Daily Witness titled “These Ways Were Dark: How Lee Fee Piloted ‘Merchant’ Laundrymen from Montreal to New York”.

Lee Fee was employed as an interpreter for incoming Chinese immigrants during the height of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882-1943), which barred Chinese labourers from immigrating to the United States and required previous immigrants to obtain documentation before they could be readmitted [6]. As the Chinese Consul at Ellis Island’s New York-New Jersey port in 1893 [7], where he interpreted between Chinese immigrants and a Deputy Collector during port interrogations, Lee Fee served as a witness and consultant on over 200 cases of Chinese immigration [8]. In February of 1893, he requested that three Chinese men be released after they were detained in New Jersey for “attempting to evade the Exclusion [A]ct”. Lee Fee claimed that they were merchants belonging to the Mott St. community and paid their $500 bail himself [7]. Due to his position as an interpreter, Lee Fee moved frequently between Montreal and New York [3], and became acquainted with notable members of the Montreal Chinese community including Wing Sing and Sang Kee [1].

In July of 1894, a reporter named R.L. Farnham of The Evening World alleged having gained the trust of Lee Fee to uncover a country-spanning smuggling operation. According to Farnham, this operation allowed an estimated 1,100 Chinese labourers to emigrate to the United States across the Canadian border under false documentation that claimed they were returning residents or merchants, two groups exempt from the Exclusion Act [1] [4] [9]. Farnham submitted his evidence to the Secretary of the Treasury, resulting in mass arrests and the closing of the Burlington, Vermont border (where many of the smuggled men were said to have entered the United States) to all Chinese immigrants [4] [10]. On July 8th, The World published a fifteen column article that claimed “thousands of Chinese men have evaded the [Exclusion Act] by paying smugglers [who] have customs connections and railway alliances, operating from New York, Boston, and Montreal [and running] from Vancouver to Mott Street”, naming Lee Fee as the leader of the operation [4]. This article also published a sworn and signed confession made by Lee Fee – Farnham claimed to have promised Lee Fee a government interpreter position in return – which admits to his involvement in helping Chinese labourers evade the Exclusion Act.

One day before The World made the case public, Lee Fee, along with a group of other accused smugglers, were arrested and arraigned in the Federal Building on charges of aiding and abetting the smuggling of Chinese labourers [10]. They were soon after sent to Ludlow Street Jail to await trial [10]. Lee Fee had friends ready to bail him out – “men who value him at a great deal more than $1000” [1] – but as he was the “one the Government seems to be most desirous of connecting with the frauds”, he was not released [11]. However, Lee Fee’s court date was repeatedly delayed due to the large amount of evidence that Special Agent John Thomas Scharf (also known as the “Chinese Inspector” tasked with enforcing the Exclusion Act) needed to produce for the case [12]. Despite the delays, Lee Fee and the other detained men were reported to be “[sitting] around in the office of Commissioner Shields chattering and laughing” while their friends raised bail [12].

Lee Fee finally faced a jury on the morning of July 17th, where he was charged with smuggling a labourer named Quong Wah (real name Lai Bak Jim – his pseudonym was reportedly Lee Fee’s idea) into the United States on June 16th under the false claim that Quong Wah was a merchant [3] [11] [13] [14]. According to Farnham’s testimony on the stand, Lee Fee had aided eleven Chinese men in crossing from Montreal to New York City with forged documentation, where he picked them up from Grand Central Station and brought them to Chinatown himself [4]. In court, Lee Fee admitted that Quong Wah was a laundryman [15]. Due to a lack of concrete evidence against Lee Fee aside from Farnham’s word, his attorney W.W. Hoover put forth a motion to dismiss the case [3] [14], but the presiding judge, Commissioner Shields, reserved his decision [16]. The hearing of related cases including Joseph Singleton, Lee How, Lee Tick, and other accused associates of Lee Fee continued until July 25th, when Scharf’s inability to produce evidence or witnesses led Commissioner Shields to call for the dischargement of all the accused men connected to the case [17]. Lee Fee was discharged on August 2nd, after 26 days of detainment [18].

In the wake of his highly publicized court case, Lee Fee returned to 24 Mott St., where he continued his employment as an interpreter [5]. The Evening World mentioned him one final time on August 29th, 1896 [19], when Chinese Viceroy Li Hongzhang (romanized Li Hung Chang in the article) visited the streets of Chinatown, which were lavishly decorated in “a riot of yellow and blue”. The article reads, “in front of Mott St. stores are panels inscribed with greetings for the Viceroy. One in front of Lee Fee’s house reads “The Middle Kingdom and the Outside World Form One Family”.” It is unknown whether Lee Fee hung the banner himself – but it seems likely that he had joined in on the festivities.

Works Cited

[1] Anonymous. “Seventeen Arrests.” The Daily Witness [Montreal, QC], 10 July 1894, p. 1, 4.

[2] Anonymous. “Half-Chinese Children.” The Montreal Daily Star, 20 April 1894, p. 3.

[3] Anonymous. “The Smuggling of the Chinese.” The Montreal Daily Star, 19 July 1894, p. 3.

[4] Anonymous. “By Ways That Are Dark.” The Daily Witness [Montreal, QC], 9 July 1894, p. 1.

[5] Anonymous. “Li Chang Up at 6.” Wisconsin Journal, 29 August 1896, p. 1.

[6] “Chinese Exclusion Act (1882).” National Archives, 8 September 2021, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act. Accessed 1 February 2025.

[7] Anonymous. “Chinese Suspects Bailed.” The Evening World [New York City, NY], 22 February 1893, p. 3.

[8] Anonymous. “Kerwin and the C—.” The New York Times, 27 July 1894, p. 9.

[9] Anonymous. “Chinese Smuggling Case.” The Daily Witness [Montreal, QC], 19 July 1894, p. 1.

[10] Anonymous. “Smuggled Chinese.” The Evening World [New York City, NY], 7 July 1894, p. 6-7.

[11] Anonymous. “C— Placed on Trial.” The Evening World [New York City, NY], 17 July 1894

[12] Anonymous. “The System Blamed.” The Evening World [New York City, NY], 11 July 1894, p. 4.

[13] Anonymous. “Lew How Confessed.” The Evening World [New York City, NY], 10 July 1894, p. 1, 6.

[14] Anonymous. “Hearing of Accused Chinese.” The Sun [New York City, NY], 18 July 1894, p. 7.

[15] Anonymous.“Charged with Smuggling C—.” The New York Times, 18 July 1894, p. 5.

[16] Anonymous. “A Swarm of C—.” Telegraph-Journal [Saint John, NB], 18 July 1894, p. 4.

[17] Anonymous. “Scharf’s Witnesses Absent.” The Sun [New York City, NY], 26 July 1894, p. 8.

[18] Anonymous. “Not Eager to Bail Scharf.” The Sun [New York City, NY], 2 August 1894, p. 7.

[19] Anonymous. “Excitement in Chinatown.” The Evening World [New York City, NY], 29 August 1896, p. 3.