NAA: A1, 1917/14656
Sanquay, Emily
Digital copy - 36251
| Occupation as written | housewife |
| Standardised occupation | XX00: Other - Other |
| Application received | 2 Aug 1917 |
| Application status |
Denied |
| Official | A.H. |
| Date of approval or denial | 7 Sep 1917 |
| If rejected, why? | 'you are not eligible' (husband alive and Chinese) |
| Birthplace as written | Hull, Yorkshire, England |
| Modern country | United Kingdom |
| Age on application | 59 |
| Age on arrival in Australia | 19 |
| Port of Departure | England |
| Port of Arrival | Fremantle |
| Date of arrival | 6 Aug 1917 |
| Name of ship | Dayleglis |
| Voyage | Dayleglis (1917-08-06) |
| Address in Australia | Nine Pines, Boyanup |
| Address State | Western Australia |
| Time at address | 25 years |
| Previous address 1 | Perth |
| Address State | Western Australia |
| Time at address | 3 years |
| Previous address 2 | Drugarra |
| Address State | |
| Time at address | 6 months |
| Previous address 3 | Eseraldton |
| Address State | Western Australia |
| Time at address | 3 years |
| Married | Yes |
| Children | Yes |
a girl and a boy - boy in army - see further information below |
| Name of reference | John George Baldock |
| Occupation of reference | Justice of the Peace (Western Australia) |
| Marginalia description | 'F' p.1 |
| Police report attached | No |
| Link to other applicant | |
| Literate | Yes |
| Reason | N/A |
| Other information | |
declined Sept 1917 (told ‘not eligible’). British-born, married to Chinese man.
letter, 22 August 1917, p.3: is her husband nat. 'I answer that he is, for he got the papers from the court and had them duly signed by the proper persons and took the oath to be true to King George 5th, I did the same, contend that once an oath is taken its criminal to break it, the court would see to it if it was broken there. The papers were sent to Melbourne, but he was rejected because he is a Cantonese CHinaman. Now he has been in this country 40 years and always lived a respectable and law abiding life, never been out of [4] the country, he is respected by all. I think and though he is not a good scholar, he can both read and write. He is a member of the 'Church of Christ', and is religious, he has no vice, I mean never smokes or drinks and has not done so since I married him over 30 years ago. I suppose you will go so far as to reject me as he was, but let me say here and now, that we are naturalized all the same for an oath once taken can never be broken without sin. THe reason I ask for it is that I want to do my duty to my country in several ways that can not be done otherwise. (Husband's name Ernet Sanquay). There is a note at the bottom: 'My son has been at the battle front ever since a few months after the war began, he is there still'
letter, 21 August 1917, p.5: 'you ask if my husband is naturalized I suppose you will say "No" but I contend that he is, for the papers he applied for was signed by the proper persons and he took the "Oath of Allegiance to Kin George V", the papers were sent to you, but you sent answers that he was not received because he is a CHinaman which to say the least is not generous on the part of the powers that be. He has been in this country 40 years, and always lived a respectable law abiding life, he is not a good scholar but can read, and reads the Bible twice a day, he has not and never had any vice, that is, he never smokes nor drinks or anything like that and is more deserving of naturalization than many who is not Cantonese that are We have been married over 30 years I see by my certificate, I don't see why he should be refused... I wish to be naturalised that I might fulfil my duty in several ways to my country. I am English born, my son is at the battle front, has been since three months after the war began, he was born in this country, so was my daughter' - the PS says will write another letter as some post lost lately