« 이전계속 »
Baron Saurma to Mr. Gresham.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, December 8, 1894. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have had the honor to receive your excellency's note of the 7th instant, and the accompanying message of the President of the United States to the Congress, and your excellency's accompanying report, for which I have to express my best thanks, and to inform you that I will transmit them to the Imperial Government. Please accept, etc.,
TAX ON GERMAN SALT.
Baron Saurma to Mr. Gresham.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, October 13, 1894. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: Pursuant to instructions I have the honor to invite your attention to the following matter:
According to section 608 of the new tariff act of the United States, salt shall be generally exempt from duty, but shall be subject to the former duty when it is imported from a country which imposes a duty upon salt exported from the United States.
In virtue of this resolution it is understood that the Treasury Department of the United States has issued an order making the former tariff to apply to salt imported from Germany.
The Imperial Government desires to point out that in its opinion a duty that is made to weigh upon salt imported from Germany would not be found to agree with the rights of the most favored nation, which, according to the treaties of commerce in force, are guaranteed to Germany.
In these treaties it is determined that no higher duty shall be levied upon the imports into the United States of the products of German soil and industry than that levied upon similar products of any other country. It does not seem reconcilable, therefore, with this clear and unconditional stipulation that the imports from Germany should from any other cause be excluded from the free list or a tariff reduction that may be granted to other countries. In this light, especially, it is irrelevant to consider whether like American products are subjected in Germany to any duty or to what duty they are subjected.
Quite apart from this view, which is adduced from the treaties in force, it must also be considered that Germany does not actually levy a duty upon American salt. On foreign salt entering by the way of land or rivers into Germany a duty of 12 marks and 80 pfennigs per each 100 kilograms is levied; by way of sea only 12 marks. This rate of 12 marks constitutes the equivalent of the assessment of the corresponding salt taxes of the German States (see act of October 12, 1867, for the territory of the former North German Confederates, Bunesgesetzblatt, p. 41), levied upon the domestic salt industry, and which also amount to 12 marks per 100 kilograms. Albeit this rate in question is specified in the German tariff, it is virtually no real duty, but only an internal tax, and certainly does not provide the least protection to the internal salt industry.
Moreover, imported foreign salt, which is not destined for human consumption, but for industrial and agricultural purposes (especially for feed for cattle), is exempt from this rate of 12 marks, which is also the case with the assessment of internal salt intended for such purposes. This exemption occurs especially when the salt, through deterioration, has been made unfit for human use.
As the importation of American salt into Germany would naturally take place only by sea, it follows from the above statement that the presumptions under which a duty is to be placed upon salt imported into the United States do not exist for German salt not intended for human use, particularly for deteriorated salt, according to the letter, and for German eating salt, according to the spirit of section 608, above quoted.
In submitting, according to instructions, the above to your excellency and the competent authorities for friendly examination and consideration, I am hopeful that the Government of the United States will share the view of the Imperial Government in this matter, and therefore be able to place German salt imported into the United States on the free list. May I ask to be advised of the decision reached ? Accept, etc.,
PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM MILITARY DUTY.
Mr. Runyon to Mr. Gresham.
EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Berlin, November 1, 1894. SIR: I have the honor to append hereto a memorandum report of certain military cases, more particularly mentioned below, which have not yet been referred to in my correspondence with the State Department, and to be, sir, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 153.)
William Wegmer was born at Schützingen, Würtemberg, December 20, 1868, and emigrated in 1884 to the United States, where he became naturalized as an American citizen on October 21, 1891, at Newark, N. J., where he now resides. In 1892 an attachment was placed upon an inheritance coming to him for his failure to perform military service. Upon intervention made in his behalf uuder date of June 3, 1893, the attachment was removed and instructions were given to the state's attorney to desist from all further prosecution of the case.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 153.)
Peter Brück was born at Gross Altenstadten, Prussia, January 20, 1867, and emigrated in '1882 to the United States, where he became naturalized as an American eitizen on November 5, 1888, in Crawford County, Ohio. In May, 1893, he returned to his native place on a visit, and a few daye after his arrival he was arrested, and, in order to avoid imprisonment, was forced to pay a fine of 150 marks, in satisfaction of a judgment recorded against him for failure to perform military service. Upon intervention made in his behalf under date of June 8, 1893, the money paid as tine and costs was refunded to him.
(Inclosure 3 in No. 153.] Peter Kanjorski (Kedziorski) was born at Lautenburg, Prussia, June 30, 1866, and emigrated in 1879 to the United States, where he became naturalized as an American citizen at Wilkes barre, Pa. In July, 1893, he returned on a visit to his native place, where he was, on August 1, 1893, compelled to pay a fine of 155 marks, imposed upon him for failure to perform military service. Upon intervention made under date of August 12, 1893, the repayment of the money paid as a fine was effected.
[Inclosure 4 in No. 153.)
Max Cohen was born at Culmsee, Prussia, September 12, 1858, and emigrated in 1879 to the United States, where he became naturalized as an American citizen in Texas, on October 12, 1885. In March, 1892, he paid a visit to his native place, returning to America in September of the same year. While sojourning with bis par. ents, in order to avoid molestation he paid, on April 27, 1892, a tine which, with costs, amounted to 264 marks, for failure to appear for the third inquiry into his fitness for military duty. Upon intervention made under date of September 30, 1893, the return of the money paid was effected.
[Inclosure 5 in No. 153.]
Siegfried Apt was born at Zabrze, Silesia, in 1871, and emigrated in 1886 to the United States, where he became duly naturalized as an American citizen. He returned in January, 1894, to his native place, where on March 3 he was arrested and impressed into the German military service, in spite of the embassy's intervention made in his behalf on February 28, 1894, at a time when his case was being considered by the military authorities. He was, however, released on the evening of the second day after his impressment, and he was then recognized as an American citizen and his name was removed from the list of those liable for military duty.
(Inclosure 6 in No. 153.] Conrad Carl was born at Asslar, Prussia, January 3, 1867, and emigrated in 1884 to the United States, where he became naturalized as an American citizen October 25, 1893. In February, 1894, he returned to his native place, where he was on March 12 compelled to pay a fine of 150 marks for nonperformance of military service. The embassy's intervention, made March 19, 1894, resulted in the refunding to him of the money paid as tine and costs.
[Inclosure 7 in No. 153.) Christian J. Gerstner was born at Marktlenthen, Bavaria, February 18, 1865, and emigrated in 1882 to the United States, where he became naturalized as an American citizen November 3, 1888. On April 10, 1894, the amount of 183.98 marks was deducted from an inheritance coming to him, on account of a fine which had been imposed upon him for failure to perform military service. Upon the embassy's intervention, made June 22, 1894, the return to him of this money was ordered.
(Inclosure 8 in No. 153.] Hugo Meyerstein was born at Gotha January 27, 1869, and emigrated in 1887 to the United States, where he became naturalized as an American citizen on May 31, 1894. In June he returned to his native place on a visit, where on July 28 he was compelled to pay a fine of 450 marks for alleged violation of military duty. Upon intervention made August 2, 1894, the refunding of the money paid as a fine was ordered.
(Inclosure 9 in No. 153.] Emil Wilke was born at Hochstüblan, Prussia, May 11, 1872, and emigrated in 1888 to the United States, where he became naturalized as an American citizen at Chicago, June 17, 1893. In May, 1894, he returned on a visit to his parents, and on September 11 he received an order from the police authorities to leave German territory within ten days. Upon the embassy's intervention, made September 11, 1894, this order was canceled, and he was informed that he might remain in Germany until the end of December, 1894.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS.
Mr. Uhl to Mr. Runyon. No. 158.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, October 5, 1894. SIR: I inclose herewith copy of a correspondence which has passed between this Department, Messrs. Richards & Co., of New York, and the Department of the Interior in regard to publishing in the Imperial Gazette of Berlin that the laws of the United States guarantee reciprocity in the matter of patents, in order that our citizens may thereby be enabled to avail themselves of the benefit of the German patent law of April 7, 1891.
That law provides as follows: SECTION 1. Patents are granted for new inventions, which permit of an industrial exploitation. The exceptions are
SEC. 2. An invention is not considered as new, if at the date of filing the application according to the provisions of this present law, the same has been so described in public prints, within the last century, or so publicly employed in the country (the German Empire), that the use of the same by other persons skilled in the art appears possible.
The official foreign patent specifications are only considered equal to public prints after the lapse of three months from the date of publication, in so far as the patent is applied for by the foreign patentee or his legal successor.
This exception refers, however, only to the official publications of those States in which, according to a publication of the imperial chancellor in the Imperial Gazette, reciprocity is guaranteed.
It will be seen by the report of the Commissioner of Patents inclosed in the letter from the Secretary of the Interior of August 27, 1894, that the reciprocity so to be guaranteed on the part of Germany by the act of the imperial chancellor has long been guaranteed by the United States under the provisions of section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, taken in connection with section 4886.
Section 4887 is as follows: No person shall be debarred from receiving a patent forhis invention or discovery, nor shall any patent be declared invalid, by reason of its having been first patented or caused to be patented in a foreign country, unless the same had been introduced into public use in the United States for more than two years priorto the application. But every patent granted for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country shall be so limited as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent, or if there be more than one at the same time, with the one having the shortest term and in no case shall it be in force more than seventeen years.
Section 4886 reads: Any person who has invented or discovered any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, not known or used by others in this country, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country before his invention or discovery thereof, and not in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to his application, nnless the same is proved to have been abandoned, may, upon payment of the fees required by law and other due proceedings had, obtain a patent therefor.
It is apparent, therefore, the Commissioner observes, that no person is debarred from receiving and maintaining an American patent by reason of its having been first patented in a foreign country unless the invention has been in public use in the United States for more than two years prior to the application, the only limit being that the American patent so granted shall be limited to expire at the same time with the foreign patent. An American patent may be applied for at any time during the life of the foreign patent.
As all that can be secured to American inventors under existing provisions of the German law is the right to apply for a German patent within three months from the date of the publication of his American patent, a much more restricted favor than bas long been enjoyed by German subjects in this country, and as all that remains to be done to secure the enjoyment of this limited right is that reciprocity be announced by a publication effected by the imperial chancellor in the Imperial Gazette, the Commissioner of Patents submits that American inventors have just ground for asking that the Imperial Government make prompt publication of the reciprocity which has long been offered by the existing provisions of the American law.
In view of this recommendation you are instructed to endeavor to reach an understanding with the German Government whereby the publication of the requisite German announcement may be procured, in order that citizens of the United States may enjoy the benefit of the German law. The subject is to be considered separately and aside from that of the draft treaty concerning patents and trade-marks, which involves many other questions, and which is under consideration by the Patent Office. I am, sir, etc,
EDWIN F. UHL,
Mr. Runyon to Mr. Gresham.
EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Berlin, March 10, 1894. (Received March 30.) SIR: I have the honor to report that I have to-day issued a passport to Abraham H. Mausbach, a native American citizen, at present residing temporarily in Luxemburg. The application was made through, and on oath before the vice commercial agent, the only consular officer of the United States there. Inasmuch as Luxemburg is an entirely independent sovereignty, and is not a part of the German Empire, to which I am. accredited (nor indeed of any other dominion), and the application was not made from Germany, I have thought it prudent to report my action in the premises the case presenting unusual features, as already appears, and
to take the precaution to secure a return of the passport in case my action in granting it (as to the propriety of which, however, I see no
room to doubt, otherwise I would not have issued the passport) should not be approved. There is no United States official in Luxemburg, who under the regulations is.competent to issue a passport. Had the applicant come into the German Empire and made his application to me either directly or through a consular officer