CO129-331 - Public Offices - 1905 — Page 78

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government,]

CHINA TRADE.

CONFIDENTIAL

C.O.

22288

77

(June 19.1

RECS

Red 28 JUN 05!

SECTION 1.

No. 1.

(No. 145.) My Lord,

Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne.(Received June 19.)

Peking, April 18, 1905. I HAVE the honour to transmit copy of the amended draft of the Chinese Trade-mark Regulations framed by my French and German colleagues and myself, after discussion of the proposals of the commercial bodies at Shanghae (copy of which was inclosed in my despatch No. 100 of the 18th March), in combination with the instructions received by us from our respective Governments, and provisionally accepted by the Italian Minister and the Austro-Hungarian Chargé d'Affaires. I add also copy of the joint unofficial note in which this draft was communicated to the Chinese Government, in which we express the hope that it will be found possible to arrive at an agreement respecting this draft, which would then be submitted to our respective Governments for their approval. The accompanying correspondence exchanged with the Italian Minister and the Austro-Hungarian Chargé d'Affaires shows the views which they entertain in regard to the draft, A copy of the latter has also been communicated privately to the Japanese Minister and the United States' Chargé d'Affaires for their information, as, although the Chinese Regulations have been accepted by their Governments without alteration, they are also interested in the question of the amendments of which the introduction is desired by our Governments.

It should be explained that Baron von Mumm is the Senior Representative among those taking part in this negotiation, as well as temporary doyen of the Diplomatic Body.

The translation originally prepared by the Commercial Attaché and revised in this Legation, which was forwarded to your Lordship in my despatch No. 256 of the 8th August last year, was perhaps not quite so precise as might be desired in the case of a document bearing the character of a legal enactment. On the other hand, certain passages were of obscure import, owing to the unfamiliarity of the Chinese draughtsman with the technicalities of his subject. I beg to forward another trans- lation, which I believe represents as closely as possible the meaning of the original, when the difference between the Chinese and English languages is taken into account. Even in the case of English and French versions of the same document, precisely equivalent phrases are not always to be found, and this is much more likely to be the case when the two languages are Chinese and English. For this reason, I venture to recommend that when these papers come to be reviewed by the officials of the Board of Trade, too much importance should not be attached to shades of expression in the English version. A suggestion of this kind seems not out of place when it is remembered that the Board of Trade, in their proposals communicated to me in your Lordship's telegram of the 13th April, expressed a desire that "proprietor" should be substituted for "owner" throughout the Regulations. The distinction between these two words, whatever its legal value may be in English, finds no place in the Chinese language, which has but one expression for both, and at best it can only be accepted as an indication that in our English translation the more formal of the two should be preferred.

There is another point of very much greater importance which should not be lost sight of in criticizing the provisions of a set of Chinese Trade-mark Regulations, namely, that such Regulations govern the actions of Chinese subjects only, and not those of foreigners. By the clauses in all the Treaties of China, foreigners residents in this country are exempt from the jurisdiction of Chinese Tribunals and from the operation of Chinese Law, no matter what its nature. Consequently they cannot be punished for a contravention of the present Regulations, unless, indeed, the latter should happen in some particular provision to coincide with the law of the foreigner; and then they are punishable, not for contravening the Chinese Regulations, but for violating their own law. There is, therefore, no advantage gained by insisting on the

[2039 -1]

B