4. Mr. Dairfield
As Hongkong & Singapore are both free Ports Section 16 of the act is of course useless. But is no other machinery.
For prohibiting ? If invaded by the introduction of adulterated merchandise, the danger is more apparent than real.
In supporting can be done we must still recognize that the effect of long advance will be in this respect on the same lines as that of some other places being free Ports.
We were reminded last March that they were considering the question months ago.
W. Meade
Run 8/8
Then Iking for proposed (see 25956/07) to retaining the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887,
and I see that the Ord. as 25956 Sug145 Hking 17.9 11/188 read a 1st time last Nov. Contained a clause (14) in which the Collector of Imports & Exports was empowered to seize and destroy goods imported with false marks; but I fail to see how that Officer, whose duties are at present confined under Ord. 22/1887 after Opium, have the machinery to enforce these provisions against fraudulent trademarks. He has only a very limited staff of Clerks.
Shall we ask J. Akong again, to press forward this Bill, & ask him in sending it home to report how it is proposed to carry out provisions of cl. 14 (assuming it is passed).
We hear that, [When we suggest to Shantung to imitate this Example of Hongkong in the matter, it appears practicable]
I meanwhile ack: W. Hughes' letter & proposals for the future.
GLA
Frethean comm 27.2. Guy. 12/8/90
712-8-20
Rine 14/0
Page 810
Page 811
KA