The Lost Ledger: Evidence Ellis Island Kept Its Own Arrival Records

I have always heard that no records were created at Ellis Island, that the only records used were the passenger lists created by the ship company, and that Ellis Island officials merely inspected immigrants and marked the manifests. In my recent research, in preparation for a presentation, I uncovered multiple sources suggesting that this statement was not entirely true. I now believe Ellis Island officials did create their own records, but only for a short window of time, and likely as a part of a process that began before Ellis Island even opened.

Why this question is difficult to answer

One of the main reasons this topic is so confusing is that a fire on Ellis Island in 1897 destroyed records, but the exact scope of what was lost is unclear. All manifests that were on Ellis Island were burned.

A little background

Castle Garden was located at the southern tip of Manhattan, in the area now referred to as Battery Park. For about 35 years, immigrants entering the New York harbor were processed at Castle Garden, an immigration station run under New York State’s immigration system. In 1890, the federal government assumed control of immigration processing. New York would not allow the federal government to continue using Castle Garden. While the federal government looked for a permanent location for immigration, they processed immigrants at the Barge Office, a building already used for customs/baggage screening. On 1 Jan 1892, Ellis Island opened. It is often said that Castle Garden records were later kept on Ellis Island, but exactly what those records were, is unclear, as it is not well-known what the 1897 fire consumed.

The law didn’t create screening, it standardized it

The Immigration Act of 1893 is often described as when immigration “questions” began, but that oversimplifies what happened. This Act required ship manifests to ask 30 questions of immigrants before they boarded the ship and to record the answers on the manifests.¹ Earlier laws established categories of people who could be excluded from landing, indicating that officials were already assessing admissibility. The 1893 law changed how documentation was conducted (with responsibility shifting to shipping companies) and standardized the questions used on manifests (the specific questions to be asked). The manifests after the Immigration Act of 1893 included 30 questions, whereas 19, or possibly 15, questions were asked at Ellis Island prior to the law.²

The Immigration Act of 1882 required that certain categories of people not be permitted to land, including anyone found to be a “convict, lunatic, or idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”³

An 1885 law expanded excluded persons to include contract laborers.⁴

The immigration Act of 1891 required inspection of arriving immigrants before landing, either on board the vessel or by temporary removal at a designated time and place.⁵

The Immigration Act of 1893 required ship companies to ask the required questions of everyone coming to the United States and record the answers on the ship manifest. But the 1893 law did not invent exclusion screening, it changed the process. The screening already existed. What changed was where the answers were recorded and whose responsibility it was.

Evidence “registry” or “ledger” books were kept

In researching Ellis Island, I discovered multiple independent sources describing a process in which immigration officials asked standardized questions and entered answers into a book or ledger.

If screening were happening before 1893, where were the answers recorded?

Source 1: The New York Herald describes 19 questions entered into a book

In 1893, just over two months after implementing the new ship manifests, the New York Herald wrote an article about some of the transitional pains. As a preface to their story, they explained a little history, telling of the process before the manifests were used.

Immigrants who landed at Ellis Island were formerly examined as to their qualifications for becoming citizens. There was a set form of nineteen questions which had to be answered satisfactorily before permission to land could be obtained. These questions were put to the immigrants as they passed in line through a little narrow passages in the Ellis Island rotunda. The answers were entered in a book. If they were not satisfactory, the immigrant was detained for further examination. Under the new law this method of procedure is changed.⁶

This is significant because it plainly states that answers were entered into a book, and also indicates the procedure changed under the new law.

Source 2: A British book describes registration clerks filling in ledger columns.

A book published in Great Britain in 1893 describes the process at Ellis Island. The book notes that the process changed after it was observed but before the book was printed. The writer visited Ellis Island on seven different days and one time even went unnoticed among a group of immigrants to see firsthand what they actually went through. The description regarding registration is given as follows:

It is by ‘registration clerks’ that the process of ascertaining whether the immigrant is eligible or ineligible on other than purely medical grounds performed. How this is done we will now observe.

As the immigrant comes up to him, the registration clerk ‘takes him in’ with a rapid glance, and then proceeds to put to him a series of questions, the answers to which enable the clerk to fill in the columns of the ledger in front of him.⁷

The British Ellis Island observer identified 15 questions, rather than 19. This could reflect differences in timing, procedure, or what each writer counted as a ‘question.’

The language described in the British book of “ledger,” “columns,” and “filled in” strongly implies recordkeeping beyond the ship manifests.

Source 3: Newspaper describes the first name in a new “registry book” (1890)

The day the Federal Government officially took over immigration, a newspaper described the first person whose name went in the new registry book.

The first name to go upon the new registry books was that of Herman Volke, a locksmith from Sax-Weimar.⁸

I then researched Herman Volke to see if his name was first on the customs list and he was on the middle of the fourth page of the steerage passenger list.⁹ Manifests could not be consulted as no incoming ship manifests for 1890 appear to have survived for the port of New York (assuming there were any to begin with). I also checked the outgoing ship manifests that came out of Germany, which, on a brief scan of the manifest, appear to have the names in the same order as the customs list.¹⁰ This strongly suggests that this was a new record created by the government in the United States and not a description of a ship manifest.

The word “new” in "new registry books" could have different meanings. Was this a new process? Or was it just a new book, as this was the first day of federal oversight?

Source 4: Castle Garden Descriptions

Just weeks before Castle Garden closed in 1890, the New York Times documented the process at the Castle Garden immigration station.

The immigrants were examined by having them pass in single file before the inspectors, who asked each immigrant his age, name, destination, whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, the condition of his health, the number of his family with him, and whether he had railroad tickets.

Only heads of families were examined, but the name and age of each immigrant was registered. The statements made by immigrants were not under oath except in the case of re-examination.¹¹

The newspaper also reported that many of the federal immigration employees had previously worked at Castle Garden. It is likely that the same, or at least a similar, process was followed when the Federal Government took over.

This article mentioned the name and age of each immigrant was registered. Were there two separate books, one for answering questions and one to “register”? Or were they referring to the same book?

What this evidence suggests

At this point, there are four separate references describing what appears to be government recordkeeping at arrival. If I had continued digging, I suspect I could find additional examples, but this was already a rabbit hole and not the purpose of my research. However, this appears sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that government officials were creating their own arrival registry records, at least in New York, prior to 1893. These records likely ceased with the introduction of new, more inquisitive, manifests.

My theory is that, after the Immigration Act of 1882, when the federal government imposed stricter restrictions, immigration officials needed a means to document that exclusion screening questions were asked. A registry or ledger book provided a clear method of recording that process. Then, in 1893, responsibility shifted, and shipping companies had to ask for and record answers on manifests, thereby making the government ledger redundant.

Could similar books exist for other ports?

After I discovered these references to records kept at Ellis Island, Castle Garden, and the Barge office, I started to think: If these records were kept in New York, wouldn’t they have also been kept at other ports, such as Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore?

They may have. Or they may not have.

Before 1891, Immigration was handled at the state level, meaning procedures could vary by port of entry. These registry books may have been New York’s way of documenting screening. However, it is also possible that registry books for the other ports exist today, sitting uncataloged in an archive, or forgotten in an old ledger box no one has examined in generations.

Conclusion: The “Ellis Island created no records” claim needs revision.

Multiple independent sources all document that records were, in fact, kept at Ellis Island. This practice appears to have ended in 1893. Ellis Island opened in 1892, suggesting a one-year window for Ellis Island registry/ledger books. But the process almost certainly predates Ellis Island, meaning similar records may have existed at Castle Garden.

Unfortunately, due to the 1897 fire at Ellis Island, it seems impossible to determine the extent of the records created.

About

Category

• All
• England
• General
• Other Countries
• United States

Previous Articles

Tags

• cemetery (1)
• census (6)
• civil war (1)
• Ellis Island (2)
• immigration (2)
• legislation (1)
• methodology (6)
• my family (6)
• newspapers (3)
• paleography (1)
• Revolutionary War (2)
• strays (1)
• tax records (1)
• technology (1)
• vital records (1)
• women (1)

Lineage Tracer is owned and operated by Karen Kowallis, LLC.

Copyright © 2026 Karen Kowallis, LLC. - All Rights Reserved.
Based on a design by Population2
Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings