but that opposition can not, of course, affect the question of the proper method of contracting an international obligation under our Constitution. I am, etc., ALVEY A. ADEE, Acting Secretary. No. 68.] Mr. Alexander to Mr. Uhl. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Athens, June 18, 1895. (Received July 5.) SIR: * I should like to conclude at once a convention for the reciprocal protection of trade-marks, in accordance with your instructions, and to secure its ratification during this session of the Chamber; but I fear that this will be impossible. The Chamber will probably adjourn as soon as the budget is voted and other matters long pending are settled. And, for reasons already stated in these dispatches, such a convention would probably fail of ratification now. I may add that the Greek foreign office hesitates, chiefly from the feeling that it might be treating unfairly other nations with which such declarations have already been concluded, to admit that trade-mark declarations are less valid than formal conventions. This was the opinion of Mr. Nicholas Delyanni, late prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, with whom I had several conferences on the subject. His successor in the foreign office, Mr. Skonzes, was appointed so recently that I have had no opportunity of discussing the matter with him. I shall speak to him about it as soon as possible, and do whatever I can to bring about the desired result. E. ALEXANDER. I have, etc., No. 74.] Mr. Alexander to Mr. Adee. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Athens, July 25, 1895. (Received Aug. 10.) SIR: I have the honor to state that, as the Department of State was advised in my dispatch No. 68, of the 18th ultimo, I took advantage of the earliest opportunity to confer with Mr. Skonzes, the present minister of foreign affairs, in regard to a convention for the reciprocal protection of trade-marks. I endeavored to state to him as fully as possible the reasons why a formal convention is preferred instead of the declaration signed July 9/21, 1894. Mr. Skonzes said to me: By our law enacted February 16, 1893, protection of trade-marks in Greece was allowed, on reciprocity, to citizens or subjects of those nations which, in their treaties with Greece, had made provision for such protection. Since other nations, also, which had concluded commercial treaties with Greece claimed the right of securing the same protection for the trade-marks of their citizens or subjects, it was decided, after long and careful deliberation, to grant the same privilege to all nations requesting it on terms of reciprocity. On the basis of this interpretation of the aforesaid law, we proceeded to sign declarations with those nations to which Greece had not granted protection of their trade-marks by special articles in treaties made with them. The conclusion of special conventions to this effect was unnecessary, because the law mentioned gives us the general right of assuming such obligations on reciprocity, and of making such concessions to foreign nations. Therefore the submission to the Boulé of any special convention for the reciprocal protection of trade-marks was thought by us to be useless. protection of trade-marks was American minister. For us it is perfectly valid. American citizens can, without hindrance, demand protection here for their trade-marks, and it seems to us that, in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress approved August 5, 1882, it should be possible for a Greek subject, after this declaration of reciprocity, to be allowed similar protection for his trade-mark in the United States. If, however, your Government thinks that such protection can not under your Constitution be accorded to Greek subjects without special legislation, that, of course, is a matter which your Government must decide for itself. The declaration mentioned may be submitted to the Senate of the United States for approval if your Government considers such action necessary. For us it is already binding, and we think it quite unnecessary that a special convention should be submitted to our Boulé for ratification. At the same time, we feel that if we should comply with your request for a special convention we should be dealing unfairly with the other nations with whose representatives we have united in signing similar declarations. On this principle a declaration for the reciprocal signed July 9/21, 1894, by Mr. Stephanos and the In view of the position taken by Mr. Skonzes, from which I fear that he can not be moved, I must await further instructions from you in regard to this matter. I have, etc., E. ALEXANDER. No. 75.] Mr. Olney to Mr. Alexander. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 9, 1895. SIR: I have now to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 74, of July 25, 1895, in the matter of the declaration signed by Mr. Stephanos and, yourself July 9, 1894, to the effect that the treaty of December 10/22, 1837, between the United States and Greece conferred upon the citi zens or subjects of either country in the dominions of the other the same rights as respects trade-marks, industrial designs, and patterns as such citizens or subjects enjoy in their own country. After a careful consideration of the statements of Mr. Skonzes quoted in your dispatch and of the previous correspondence upon the whole question, I am obliged to adhere to the conclusions announced in Mr. Gresham's instruction to you, No. 43, of February 21, 1895, in which he expressed the preference for a regular and formal trade-mark convention, a draft of which and a full power to sign the same were sent to you with instruction No. 21, of May 16, 1894. You will therefore use your best efforts to effect the consummation of said convention. I am, etc., RICHARD OLNEY. No. 85.] Mr. Alexander to Mr. Olney. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Athens, December 17, 1895. (Received Jan. 4, 1896.) SIR: I have the honor to state that I should be very glad if I could inform you that there are reasonable grounds for hoping that I shall be able to carry out the instructions of your dispatch, No. 75, of the 9th ultimo, relative to a trade-mark convention. I shall continue to use every effort to induce the Greek Government to agree to a regular and formal convention instead of the declaration for the reciprocal protection of trade-marks which was signed July 9/21, 1894; but I am convinced that the reasons which have hitherto influenced that Government in declining conventions with any nation on this subject will still have the same influence. Those reasons are, in brief, the conviction that declarations, several of which have been signed and have proved satisfactory in practice, are valid and sufficient; reasonable certainty that any ministry would fail in an attempt to secure the necessary ratification by the Chamber of Deputies; hesi tation to act in what might seem an unfair manner toward other nations by thus questioning the validity of similar declarations. These considerations have had so much weight with the Greek Government that, even when the treaty between Greece and Belgium was recently concluded, the former would not consent to include in the body of the treaty articles on the protection of trade-marks, but insisted on appending a declaration to that effect. Nearly all of the other Governments, whose representatives here have signed declarations for the reciprocal protection of trade-marks, preferred formal conventions, thinking, as we thought, that these declarations did not necessarily follow as interpretations of their treaties with Greece; but, understanding that in no other way was it possible to secure protection in Greece for foreign inventions, and that, in accordance with the Greek law on trade marks, such declarations have complete validity here, they have decided to make the best terms possible, and their trade-marks have for some time been registered and protected in this country. I frequently receive from Americans inquiries concerning the regis tration of their inventions in Greece. I hardly know how to answer these inquiries, because, although the Greek Government holds that American trade-marks can now be registered in Greece, we think that the declaration already signed does not guarantee protection to American inventions in Greece, nor to Greek inventions in the United States. I therefore beg that you will inform me whether, in the event of failure to consummate a convention, it is your wish that we should avail ourselves of the advantages afforded by the existing declaration, or should notify the Greek Government of our desire to withdraw from that declaration. In the meantime I shall do everything in my power to carry out your instructions. E. ALEXANDER. I have, etc., Mr. Olney to Mr. Alexander. No. 81.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have received your No. 85, of the 17th ultimo. It relates to the question of a formal trade-mark convention with Greece, instead of the declaration signed July 9, 1894, to the effect that the treaty of December 10/22, 1837, between the United States and Greece, conferred upon the citizens or subjects of either country in the dominions of the other the same rights as respects trade-marks, industrial designs, and patterns as such citizens or subjects may enjoy in their own. You present no argument not heretofore found in your previous dispatches, tending to show the position of the Greek Government in the matter and to confirm your opinion as to the impossibility of concluding a formal convention on the lines of the draft heretofore sent you. Were it not, therefore, for a specific inquiry on your part, your present dis patch might be filed to await the definite decision of that Government, in view of my No. 75, of November 9, 1895, expressing, after mature consideration of the whole subject, the preference and the necessity for a formal convention. You inquire, after repeating the grounds of your belief that such a convention is impossible of conclusion, "whether in the event of failure to consummate a convention, it is your (my) wish that we should avail ourselves of the advantages afforded by the existing declaration, or should notify the Greek Government of our desire to withdraw from that declaration." Mr. Gresham's instruction, No. 43, of February 21, 1895, and my own, No. 75, of November 9, 1895, are conclusive of the inability of your Government to accept the validity of the signed declaration and of its desire to conclude in its stead a formal convention for the registration of trade-marks. It is presumed you have unreservedly made known this situation to the Greek Government. Indeed, no other deduction is inferable from the desire of your Government to negotiate such a convention. This being the case, the necessity is not perceived of formally notifying, as you propose, the Greek Government of our desire to withdraw from the declaration. Even though, as you have heretofore stated and now repeat, that Government maintains that the declaration is valid in that country, it is seriously questioned whether, unless we shall extend to Greek subjects reciprocal treatment here, it would accord our citizens in Greece the privilege of registering their trade-marks in that Kingdom; in other words, grant them the "same rights as are how granted or may hereafter be granted to Hellenic subjects of the most favored nation in all that relates to trade-marks," etc., as the declaration contemplates. Under these circumstances the interpretation to be placed upon the matter is exclusively within the competency of the Greek Government, the case arising. Our position is not an ambiguous one, and with its presentation to the Greek Government, as I understand it, and our expressed wish to conclude a formal trade-mark convention, it may be permitted to rest, except so far as you may find it practicable to carry out the wishes of the Department's previous instructions looking to the conclusion of a formal convention. I am, etc., RICHARD OLNEY. GUATEMALA. RELATIONS WITH MEXICO. Mr. Lazo Arriaga to Mr. Gresham. [Translation.] LEGATION OF GUATEMALA, Mr. SECRETARY: In compliance with the instructions of my Government I had the honor, in some of our interviews, to lay before your excellency the various incidents having a bearing on the present threatening attitude of the Government of Mexico toward Guatemala; and following the suggestion of your excellency, I consign my views to writing herein. In 1881 the relations between Guatemala and Mexico became very delicate by reason of the old and troublesome boundary question between the two countries. Thanks to the good offices of the Government of the United States a war was then avoided, and there was signed in New York by the plenipotentiaries of both Republics, on the 12th of August, 1882, the preliminary basis of a final boundary treaty. This basis embraced the waiver by Guatemala of its rights to the State of Chiapas and its district of Soconusco, which at the date of the declaration of independence (September 15, 1821) were an integral part of Central America. It was stipulated further that: ARTICLE IV. In the event of the two contracting parties not being able to agree with respect to the fixing of the boundary either in whole or in part between the State of Chiapas and its department of Soconusco, on the part of Mexico on the one hand and on that of the Republic of Guatemala on the other, or in case the commissioners who shall be appointed by each Government to draw, conjointly, the dividing line, shall differ on any point or points relative to such drawing, and in case it shall be necessary to appoint an arbitrator to settle such differences as may arise on this account, both Governments agree to do so, and to request the President of the United States of America to act as such arbitrator. ARTICLE V. Actual possession shall serve as a basis in the drawing line. This, however, shall not prevent both parties from abandoning this basis by common consent, for the purpose of following natural lines, or for any other reason, and in such case the system of mutual compensations shall be adopted. Until the dividing line shall have been drawn, each contracting party shall respect the actual possession of the other. (House of Representatives, Forty-eighth Congress, Ex. Doc. No. 154.) On the 27th of September of the same year the final boundary treaty, to which the aforesaid convention refers, was signed in Mexico, which, in defining the boundary, among other things, says (clause 4, Article III), that one of the lines shall be "the parallel of latitude which crosses the last-named point (4 kilometers from the Ixbul line) eastward until it reaches the deepest point of the River Usumacinta, or the Chixoy, in case said parallel does not cross the first named river." See also under Mexico. |