« 이전계속 »
(Inclosure 1 in No. 1784.)
JANUARY 9, 1893. YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: I have the honor to address you on the subject of the counterfeiting or fraudulent imitation in China of trade marks on American piece goods.
It is plain that to place on goods manufactured in China a foreign trade-mark is injurious both to the purchaser of such goods and to the manufacturer thereof. The purchaser is deceived into buying an inferior article and one different from what he intended to buy, and the manufacturer loses the sale of his own honest goods.
In western countries it is competent for any manufacturer to adopt and register any trade mark and appropriate it to his own use, and thereafter it is both a crime and a civil injury to counterfeit or fraudulently imitate such device. It is believed that no such law exists in China, but that such practices are, nevertheless, reprobated by Chinese officials and are inhibited and punished when brought to their attention.
As an example of such action I call your attention to the copy of a proclamation recently issued by the Tientsin customs taotai which is inclosed herewith. I am informed that the practice of counterfeiting trade-marks exists in other places besides Tieltsin. My object in addressing your highness and your excellencies on the subject is to request that you will instruct the officials of the various provinces to . issue proclamations reprobating this injurious practice and directing them generally to arrest and punish all persons who are found guilty of engaging therein. I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 1784-Translation. I Proclamation of the Tientsin customs Taotai.
Acting United States Consul C. D. Tenney has sent a dispatch to the Tientsin customs Taotai, in which he states that Mr. W.R. Eastlack, of the China and Japan Trading Company, of Shanghai, has complained that the business of the said company has been injured by the fraud. ulent practices of the Tientsin piece goods dealers in counterfeiting the "Indian Head” trade-mark. On receipt of this information the acting consul sent a man to purchase cloth at various native hongs in Tientsin, and thus succeeded in obtaining from “Ch’un Hua Fai,” “Heng Fai Ho,” “Yung Hsung Ch'eng," and "Yung Shun Ho” sheetings which on comparison with the genuine " Indian Head” sheeting furnished by Mr. Eastlack proved to be, as charged, fraudulent imitations. The
acting consul therefore requests the customs Taotai to take action accordingly.
In response to the foregoing dispatch the customs Taotai summoned the managers of the four hongs above mentioned and warned them to discontinue the sale of the falsely marked "Indian Head" sheetings, and commanded them to dye all such goods as might be in stock before they offered them for sale, at the same time threatening them with severe punishment if they failed to comply with the order.
The said hongs agreed to obey and filed a bond as security.
This proclamation is now issued to warn all the wholesale and retail piece-goods dealers of Tientsin not to change the trade-marks on cotton
piece goods and not to deal in falsely marked goods. In future if any. one is discovered breaking this regulation his goods will be confiscated and in addition the offender will be severely dealt with.
Let everyone concerned take notice.
Mr. Uhl to Mr. Denby. No. 860.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 1, 1894. SIR: I have received your No. 1784 of 9th ultimo, and the copy which you inclose of a note to the Yamên on the “ fraudulent imitation in China of trade-inarks on American piece goods;" also the transcript therewith of a proclamation on the subject by the Tientsin customs taotai.
It would seem desirable that the measures adopted at Tientsin by the customs Taotai should be generally enforced at the treaty ports as an equitable remedy for the abuse complained of, and your representations to that end are approved. I am, etc.,
EDWIN F. UHL,
TRANSPORTATION OF COOLIES TO BRAZIL.
Mr. Denby to Mr. Gresham No. 1794.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, January 24, 1894. (Received March 15, 1894.) SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a translation of a communication received from the Tsung-li-Yamên, wherein I am requested to instruct the consuls at the various Chinese ports to prohibit vessels of the United States from transporting coolies to Brazil. I inclose, also, a copy of my reply thereto.
Formerly this subject was specifically treated in the Consular Regulations. (See Consular Regulations, 1881, p. 115, par. 347 et seq.) These sections were omitted from the Consular Regulations of 1888. On page 109 of these regulations it is stated that the provisions of the acts of Congress, Revised Statutes, sections 2158-2162, relating to the importation of coolies, are practically suspended by the act of July 5, 1884, and for that reason they are not reproduced.
This construction is rather narrow, and should not, in my opinion, find a place in any new edition of the regulations. It is true that sections 2158_2162, Revised Statutes, 1878, are superseded by the act of July 5, 1884, and later acts, so far as transportation of coolies to the United States is affected, but the said sections are not limited in their scope to the question of transportation to the United States alone. Section 2158 is applicable to the transportation of coolies “ subjects of China or Japan or any other oriental country, from any port or place to any foreign port or place.”
The general subject of transporting coolies was discussed by this legation as early as 1871. I have the honor, etc.,
(Inclosure 1 in No. 1794.]
The Tsung-li-Yamên to Mr. Denby.
JANUARY 21, 1894. The prince and ministers have the honor to state that they have recently received a communication from the governor-general of the two Kuang provinces to effect that the advertisement for coolies at Macao for foreign countries has for years been distinctly prohibited.
During the month of September last certain persons had posters put up on the streets inviting coolies to embark for Brazil, that the German steamer Tetartos had been chartered for the purpose of carrying them thither, and the governor-general requested the Yamên to investigate the matter and have instructions issued prohibiting this traffic.
The Yamên would observe that no rules have been arrived at between Brazil and the Chinese Government in the matter of the exportation of coolies to Brazil, and the Brazilians have no right to privately seek the employment of coolies at Macao. Furthermore, steamers of all nations have no right to be engaged in carrying coolies to Brazil. The Yamên has written to Baron Schenck, the German minister, requesting him to instruct the German consuls at the treaty ports to prohibit the carry. ing on (by German vessels) of this traffic.
The Yamên bas further received a note from the inspector-general of customs stating that he has heard that there are one or two vessels at Macao for the purpose of transporting coolies abroad.
The Yamên now, besides having addressed his excellency the Portuguese minister on the subject, as in duty bound, addresses this communication to the minister of the United States, requesting him to instruct the U. S. consuls at the various ports to look into this matter and prohibit the vessels of the United States from engaging in the transportation of coolies to Brazil, thus consolidating the friendly relations between the two countries, which is a matter of importance.
A necessary communication addressed to His Excellency Charles Denby, U. S. minister.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 1794.)
Mr. Denby to the Tsung-li-Yamên.
JANUARY 23, 1894. The minister of the United States has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the communication of the prince and ministers of the 21st instant. The prince and ministers therein request the minister of the United States to instruct the U. S. consuls at the various ports to look into this matter and prohibit the vessels of the United States from engaging in the transportation of coolies to Brazıl.
The minister of the United States, in reply, takes pleasure in stating that the laws of the United States prohibit, under heavy penalties, the use of American vessels for the transportation of coolies from China, or any other place, to be held to service or labor in any other country. Such transportation is permissible only when the emigration is volun. tary, and the consuls must give certificates stating that fact. The attention of the consuls will be called to this law and they will be directed to enforce it strictly. The minister of the United States avails, etc.
Mr. Uhl to Mr. Denby, chargé. No. 884.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, May 21, 1894. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of the minister's dispatch No. 1794, of January 24, 1894, by which it appears that the Tsang-liYamên has requested him to instruct the U. S. consuls at the various ports in China to prohibit United States vessels from transporting coolies to Brazil. Mr. Denby's reply states that the laws of this country prohibit, under heavy penalties, the use of American vessels (except where the emigration is voluntary, and the consul must so certify) for the transportation of coolies from China or any other other place, to be held to service or labor in any other country. Mr. Denby added that the attention of the consuls would be called to the law and they directed to enforce it.
The minister's dispatch has been examined with care. Sections 2158 to 2162 of the Revised Statutes, taken in conjunction with subsequent legislation restricting Chinese immigration to the United States, clearly support the opinion that the subsequent legislation does not affect the operation of the sections named upon the coolie trade, carried on by American citizens or in American vessels between China and other foreign countries.
Mr. Denby's note to the Chinese foreign office of January 23, 1894, is accordingly approved.
A copy of Mr. Denby's dispatch was transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, with this Department's opinion substantially as herein set forth, for an expression of its views; but a reply from the Acting Secretary of the 17th instant only forwarded one from the AttorneyGeneral, whose conclusion is as follows:
As it does not appear that any question has arisen in the administration of the Department of the Treasury involving the legal validity or invalidity of the result reached by the Department of State as above set forth, I [Mr. Olney) am not at liberty to give an opinion on the subject.
The misleading note on page 109 of the Consular Regulations of 1888, to which Mr. Denby refers, will be omitted in the future editions of that volume and specific instructions on the subject given to the consuls, as was done in the edition of 1881. I am, etc.,
EDWIN F. UHL,
Mr. Denby to Mr. Gresham.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, January 30, 1894. (Received March 15, 1894.) SIR: I have the honor to report a question of citizenship that has arisen in China and has been sent to me by the consul at Canton for advice.
Mrs. Lester Lawrence lately went to Swatow and opened a hotel and barroom. Under British regulations she is subject to a fine of $250 for opening the hotel and $50 per day unless she takes out a license. There is no such American regulation. Mrs. Lawrence claims to be a citizen of the United States, on the ground that she was originally a British subject, that she might have been naturalized and that she married a citizen of the United States, under paragraph 1994, Revised Statutes United States, 1878, which reads as follows:
Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen.
As construed by the Supreme Court in Kelley v. Owen (7 Wall, 496), her marriage made her a citizen. Recently she was divorced by the judgment of the court of the U. S. consulate at Niuchwang from her American husband.
The consul seems inclined to the opinion that Mrs. Lawrence, by the divorce, lost her citizenship. I have advised him that the decree of divorce simply dissolved the marital relation, did not affect citizenship, and, in my opinion, based on the facts stated, Mrs. Lawrence remains a citizen. All of which is respectfully submitted. I have, etc.
Mr. Uhl to Mr. Denby. No. 867.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 17, 1894. SIR: I have received your No. 1800, of January 30, 1894, stating the circumstances under which a question has arisen as to the nationality of Mrs. Lester Lawrence, who has opened a hotel at Swatow.
You state that Mrs. Lawrence was originally a British subject, that she married a citizen of the United States, and has since been divorced.
Mrs. Lawrence, by her marriage, became an American citizen, both by British and American law; she is undoubtedly still an American citi. zen, viewed either from the American or from the English standpoint. She bas not lost her American nationality by any method recoguized by our law; and, according to British law, an English woman, who by marriage acquires foreign citizenship, must, in order to reacquire her original nationality upon her husband's death, obtain a certificate therefor from the British authorities. It is not believed that any different rule would be applied where the parties are divorced. As Mrs. Lawrence claims American citizenship, it is assumed that she has not taken any steps to reacquire British nationality. It is not understood, either, that there is any conflicting claim to her allegiance. Your conclusions are, therefore, approved. I am, etc.,
EDWIN F. UHL,
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS DISCHARGED BY ACTING CONSULS.
Mr. Denby to Mr. Gresham.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, January 31, 1894. (Received March 15, 1894.) SIR: I have the honor to present for your decision the important question, Can an acting consul perform judicial functions in China?
It is matter of common occurrence in all nationalities that a consul