117
2
4
given the necessary conditions, and the conditions at present warrant a certain amount of uneasiness. But to say that a repetition of the Boxer outbreak headed by students is imminent is to forget the essential features of that outbreak, which took by surprise not only the most experienced of the foreign community, but also the most experienced statesmen of China. In 1901 I had a conversation with Prince Ching while events were still fresh. He was within an ace of perishing in the storm and spoke feelingly. He put the whole convulsion down to one man, Prince Tuan, and to one fact, the selection of Prince Tuan's son as heir presumptive. Prince Tuan's mental equipment and character were of the sixteenth century. His ignorance of the external world was childish, and his violent temperament took up the prevailing anti-foreign feeling in the way most natural to him as soon as his new position as father of the future Emperor gave him the power. The Foreign Minister of Japan at the time, Mr. Kato, aptly described the Boxer outbreak by saying that the Chinese Government had run amok. The Chinese Government was for the moment Prince Tuan, and it was he who ran amok. It is, I think, certain that without Prince Tuan there might have been sporadic attacks on foreigners, but there would have been no Boxer outbreak. On looking round now there is no Prince Tuan visible. There is the Prince Regent in a similar and more commanding position, but though he is at heart probably as anti-foreign as Prince Tuan, he is comparatively well acquainted with existing political conditions throughout the world, and thoroughly understands that another general anti-foreign outbreak would at least portend the extinction of the Manchu dominion.
The situation is not without anxieties, but they are the anxieties naturally arising during a period of political transition in an oriental country of unwieldy proportions. The Chinese Empire is too large to be modernised without clash even in these days, except under the hands of rulers of genius and resolution, and there are no such rulers in sight. But while individual communities of foreigners may and probably will suffer in the disputes and conflicts which are inevitable before a reasonable adjustment is attained, what I know of the present policy of the Chinese Government entitles me to expect that such occurrences will take place through neglect, incapacity or accident, and rarely with the collusion or connivance of the governing officials.
C. W. CAMPBELL.
Peking, April 25, 1910.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
со
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[18213]
No. 1.
(May 23.7589 SECTION 2
Rre 11 JUN 10)
Mr. Max Müller to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received May 23.)
(No. 135.) Sir,
Peking, May 2, 1910. IN Sir John Jordan's despatch No. 68 of the 15th February, 1909, an account was given of various cases in which satisfactory action had been taken by the Chinese authorities on the representations of His Majesty's consuls to prohibit the fraudulcut imitation of trade-marks und patents. Since that despatch was written other reports on the same subject have been received from His Majesty's consuls in China, which I have the honour to summarise below, in further illustration of the extent to which, in existing circumstances, protection can be given to British trade-marks in China.
Two cases have been reported from His Majesty's consul-general at Canton. The first, reported on the 13th February, 1909, was a fraudulent imitation of a mark used by Messrs. Loxley and Co., the British inporters at Hong Kong, of a superior make of Lisle thread singlet. A test case was brought in the court of the Namboi magistrate; the magistrate declined to convict, and at a rehearing before a deputy of the Viceroy and His Majesty's vice-consul the Viceroy's deputy adopted the magistrate's view. A proclamation was, however, issued containing a facsimile of the trade- mark in question, and warning the public, on pain of severe punishment, against selling or buying articles fraudulently bearing the mark. With the terms of this proclamation Messrs. Loxley and Co. expressed themselves as satisfied. Mr. Fox in the same report described the difficulty he had experienced in securing the publication of general proclamation against infringement of trade-marks on the same lines as one issued at Shanghae, and declared that the provincial Govern- ment did not fully realise the serious bearing of the imitation of foreign trade. marks on commercial interests. He also dwelt on the difficulties created by the modern Cantonese method of threatening boycotts, and expressed the opinion that, under present conditions, a foreign firm bad but little hope of getting any real redress for infringements of its patents and trade-marks in Canton.
The second case at Canton was reported on the 18th March, 1909. At Mr. Fox's request, the Chinese authorities fined a local dealer for importing and selling a spurious imitation of the Anglo-Swiss Milk Company's condensed milk. In connection with this case, also, a satisfactory proclamation was issued.
His Majesty's consul-general at Tien-tsin has reported three cases where action was taken by the Chinese authorities to prevent infringements. The first, reported on the 5th April, 1909, was a proclamation issued by the Customs taotai, at the instance of the American consul-general, forbidding the importation and sale of imitations of the Borden's eagle brand condensed milk. The mark in question appears to have been imitated by a German firm at Shanghae, and a similar proclamation had been issued in Shanghae.
In the second case, reported from Tien-tsin on the 19th August, 1909, the assistance of the Chinese authorities had been invoked by His Majesty's consul-general to prevent the manufacture and sale of native soap put up in packages closely resembling the packages used by Messrs. Lever Brothers for their Sunlight soap. The local court confiscated the unsold stock found on the premises, satisfied themselves that no more was in process of manufacture, and fined the manufacturers 50 dollars. The Tien-tsin agents for Sunlight soap were provided with a copy of the decision of the local court for insertion in the native press.
The third Tien-tsin case (reported the 25th April, 1910) was a sequel to certain proceedings in Shanghae, where a Chinese candle company had been obliged to sign an undertaking that they would discontinue the use of two labels complained of by Price's Patent Candle Company (Limited), as being colourable imitations of their Ship" label. A branch of this Chinese firm in Tien-tsin was found to have in its possession 500,000 of these fraudulent labels, and, after a good deal of pressure from Mr. Fulford, the local court compelled the Tien-tsin branch to recognise the agreement made by the principals in Shanghae. The Tien-tsin branch destroyed its die and
[2751 -2]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.