When the time of these letters patent has expired they are to be returned for cancellation, according to what is recorded. This letters patent is issued to Ding liu sui to receive and hold, on the 29th day of the 4th moon of the Emperor Kuang-su. In an instrument dated June 27, 1898, is set forth facts which prove that Henry Edgar, W. N. Brewster, and myself are equal owners in the above-named automatic rotary spinning machine. The following is a translation of the statement of Mr. Ding liu sui, the inventor of the said spinning machine. The Chinese original copy is attached hereto. I, Ding liu sui, of Foochow, China, make the following statement, which is the truth. In the 10th year of the Emperor Kuang-su I thought out the principle on which the automatic rotary spinning machine is constructed and operated. From that time until the 24th year of the Emperor Kuang-su I have been studying and improving it. In the 4th moon of the 24th year of the Emperor Kuang-su I went with Commissioner Edgar to Peking and secured letters patent for my spinning machine, which is there on record. This I state according to the truth for your consideration. DING LIU SUI. Signed this 24th day of October, 1899. The piles of wheels, frames, tubes, etc., we saw in Mr. Ding's attic the spring of 1896 were enough to prove the above statement. The following is the statement of Mr. Lan Kieng Hwo, a graduate of the AngloChinese College, a business man of this port, who has been acquainted with this cotton-machine business from the first: FOOCHOW, CHINA, October 26, 1899. This is to certify that I do not hesitate to state that I am personally acquainted with G. S. Miner, W. N. Brewster, Henry Edgar, Ding liu sui, and Kung Pao-hu. I know that Mr. Ding has worked many years and spent a large sum of money in bringing his machine to its present state of perfection. I know a number of men who used to work for Mr. Kung Pao-hu, and who testified before me and others that it has not yet been two years since Kung Pao-hu commenced the spinning business, and when he did commence he bought a few old machines that were found around among the people of Foochow. Mr. Kung proclaimed that he had a patent for this spinning machine and compelled these persons to sell to him. LAN KIENG HWO. I have talked with Mr. Kung on this subject and he has never claimed to be the inventor of the machine. In the years 1890 and 1897 we employed a number of men to make machines, so as to give them a thorough test. These machines have been in use ever since in Hing hua, as heretofore stated. In 1897 we heard that our men had made and sold one or more machines. Soon after this I visited a place in the city and found one machine like ours, but they would not tell us where they got it. Now there is nothing clearer than that these machines of Gung's (Kung Pao-hu) were patterned after Mr. Ding's (Chen tzu sui) and that the rights of Mr. Ding are being infringed upon and the honor of the tsungli yamen degraded by this man Gung, Mr. Gung is now making and using the machines after you have respectfully asked him to desist from infringement. I trust you will present this case again to the proper powers and the rights of Ding liu sui, Henry Edgar, N. W. Brewster, and myself be protected I have, etc., G. S. MINER. [Inclosure 10.] Mr. Conger to the Tsungli Yamen. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, YOUR HIGHNESS AND YOUR EXCELLENCIES: With reference to the question of infringement of a patent for a spinning machine, issued by the tsungli yamen to one Chen Tzu sui, and transferred to Messrs. Brewster and Miner, American citizens. On June 21, last, I had the honor to address your highness and your excellencies an additional note with important arguments therein, to which as yet I have received no response. Trusting that your highness and your excellencies have now had time to give this note consideration, as it deserves, I have the honor to respectfully request a reply to the suggestions made therein. I avail, etc., E. H. CONGER. [Inclosure 11.] The Tsungli Yamen to Mr. Conger. PEKIN, December 19, 1899. YOUR EXCELLENCY: Upon the 1st of December, instant, we had the honor to receive your excellency's note with reference to the question of infringement of a patent for a spinning machine, issued by the tsungli yamen to one Chen Tzu-sui and transferred to Messrs. Brewster and Miner, American citizens. Your excellency referred to your previous note of June 21, last, and stated that the yamen have now had time to give the note the consideration it deserves, and you respectfully requested a reply to the suggestions made therein. Upon the 8th of June your excellency addressed the yamen requesting that such orders be issued as will protect Messrs. Brewster and Miner in the exclusive right they purchased, and on the 18th idem the yamen duly replied to same. This is a matter of record. Now having received the note under acknowledgment, we have to say that China will still permit Messrs. Brewster and Miner, at all the treaty ports, to carry on their business of their own free will and accord, but as to protecting them in their exclusive right and prohibiting others from making machines, as there is no treaty stipulation on the subject, the yamen still finds no way of taking action. Cards of ministers with compliments. ISSUE OF PASSPORTS TO DISREPUTABLE CHARACTERS. No. 230.] Mr. Conger to Mr. Hay. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Pekin, China, July 11, 1899. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith copies of correspondence between this legation and Consul Fowler concerning the refusal to issue passports or travel certificates to women known to be plying their lewd vocation, and who in fact desire them for protection in such practice. I hope my action will meet with the Department's approval. [Inclosure 1.] Mr. Fowler to Mr. Conger. E. H. CONGER. No. 188.] UNITED STATES CONSULATE, SIR: Within the past few days I have received letters from two women in Port Arthur requesting me to send them passports. I wrote to them that in order to secure a passport the applicant must appear in person. The writers stated that they were "Tourists, stay in Port Arthur indefinite." On inquiring, I learned that they are two disreputable persons, and required the passports in order to be able to continue their mode of living in Port Arthur, As it is probable that they will be compelled to get passports, I wish to know if you will authorize me to refuse them, or other like characters, when applying for passports for such purposes. Ordinarily I could forward their applications to you, with a letter explaining matters, but when parties apply for passports for Port Arthur they do so in order, not to obtain a legation passport, but the travel certificate, and parties who apply for legation passports are entitled to the certificates if they want it, to be returned should the legation refuse its passport; but by that time the party has probably returned or left Port Arthur and no longer desires any passport. As the parties referred to are lawbreakers, they are not entitled to passports in my opinion. JOHN FOWLER, Consul. I have, etc., No. 373.] [Inclosure 2.] Mr. Conger to Mr. Fowler. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SIR: I have received your dispatch No. 188 of June 28, reporting a request for passports from Port Arthur by two disreputable women, who required the passports in order to be able to continue to ply their vocation at that place, and inquiring if I will authorize you to refuse them and other like characters when applying for passports for such purposes. As a general rule, it would hardly do to make moral character a basis for the issuance of passports, yet, in these Eastern countries, where certificates of citizenship stand for so much, I shall not furnish passports to parties who are known to be of the class and plying the vocation you name. When, therefore, there is no question whatever to the facts, you may refuse to forward applications, and consequently to give travel certificates. I am, etc., E. H. CONGER. Mr. Adee to Mr. Conger. No. 204.1 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have received your dispatch No. 230 of the 11th ultimo, with which you transmit copies of correspondence between the legation and the consul at Chefoo concerning your refusal to issue passports or travel certificates to certain women of disreputable life at Port Arthur, who it would seem seek those papers to enable them to continue to reside there. While the statute vests in the Secretary of State the discretion to issue passports to citizens of the United States, which discretion has been delegated under appropriate regulations to the agents of this Department in foreign countries, the exercise of that discretion has been generally confined to requiring full establishment of the citizenship of applicants and of their conservation, in good faith, of the character of citizenship, to the end that the statute may be obeyed and that passports may issue to none but citizens. Their conduct or deportment has not been made the subject of discretionary regulation so far as the granting of passports is concerned. Their acts, if wrongful, are matters for the cognizance of the law of the place of their sojourn, or of the law of the United States, if any statute be applicable to their case. Even when accused of crime or offense in a foreign land, a citizen of the United States would be entitled, in case of need, to such certification of his status as a passport affords. There have been instances in the past where the Department has exercised its discretion to the extent of directing the refusal of passports to those whose conduct in another country was violative of the laws of the United States, as when, several years ago, passports were ordered to be denied to emissaries of the then polygamous Mormon sect who were seeking to make proselytes in Germany, but such instances have been rare, and this course could obviously only be pursued under distinct warrant of law. The Federal statutes indeed take cognizance of questions of morality in the case of aliens immigrating to our shores or applying for admission to citizenship, and this may have been deemed by you applicable, by analogy, to the case in point. But these statutes do not reach the cases of citizens returning within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Department would not hold itself authorized to prescribe any conditions or qualifications of title to claim a citizen's passport other than those prescribed by law. Unless the refusal of a passport can be predicated on authority of law or of diplomatic instructions and regulations made pursuant to law, a passport may not be withheld from a bona fide citizen. The foregoing considerations make me hesitate to sanction the action you report lest it might be found to work deprivation of rights of citizenship otherwise than in pursuance of judicial course, and so inflict a penalty without the jurisdiction to try and sentence. In this conclusion I but follow your statement to Mr. Fowler, that, "As a general rule, it would hardly do to make moral character a basis for the issuance of passports. Your direction to the consul, however, does not amount to a refusal of a passport upon application actually made, but only directs him to decline to forward applications, and, consequently to give travel certificates. As to the travel certificates, their issuance by the consul would appear to be discretional, Port Arthur being in territory administered by Russia and not by China. Under all the circumstances, therefore, I am inclined to take the view, both in the interest of the right of American citizens and because of the necessity for a passport in a place under Russian jurisdiction, that in case you receive applications from these two women, either through the consul or themselves directly, made out properly, you should issue the desired passports. I am, etc., ALVEY A. ADEE, CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT-RIGHT OF CHINESE CONSULAR OFFICERS TO ISSUE PRESCRIBED CERTIFICATES. Mr. Hay to Mr. Wu. No. 65.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 5, 1898. SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith, in order that consuls dependent upon you may be suitably instructed in accordance therewith, a copy of an opinion given on the 31st ultimo (August 31 last) by the Acting Attorney General to the Secretary of the Treasury, wherein it is held that there is no authority derived from existing laws of the United States granting to consular officers of China in a foreign country the right to issue the certificates prescribed by section 6 of the act of Congress of July 5, 1884. In view of this opinion, certificates issued to Chinese subjects of the exempt class by consuls of China will not hereafter be accepted as evidence of the right of the holder to enter this country, and the consular officers of the United States have been directed to discontinue the practice of visaing certificates so issued. Chinese subjects of the exempt class coming into the United States from China will be required to produce certificates from the Govern ment of China, and those coming from foreign countries in which they are residents must produce, under the treaty of 1894, the certificates of the Government of such countries. Accept, etc., JOHN HAY. [Inclosure.] Acting Attorney-General to Secretary of the Treasury. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., August 31, 1898. SIR: I have the hono" to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of July 23, 1898, in which you invite my attention to the opinion of my predecessor, dated January 8, 1894 (20 Op., 693), holding that certificates issued by consular officers of China in a foreign country are certificates contemplated by section 6 of the Chinese exclusion act of July 5, 1884; and to the opinion of my predecessor, dated May 20, 1896 (21 Op., 347), holding that under the treaty with China of March 17, 1894, the certificates in question must issue from the proper authorities of the foreign govern ment where Chinese subjects of the privileged classes, applicants for admission to the United States, last resided; and in which, finally, in view of the foregoing, you request my opinion as to the authority of consular officers of China in foreign countries to issue the certificates prescribed in section 6 of the said act of 1884. It is fairly to be assumed that the Chinese persons, whose case we are to consider in this review, are those of the classes privileged to be admitted into the United States, who are subjects of China, resident in some other foreign country. The treaty referred to regards, in this connection, only “Chinese subjects" in terms and by necessary intendment; and the opinion last cited expressly relates to Chinese subjects alone. The act of 1884 embraces Chinese persons who are subjects of other foreign governments, as well as those who are Chinese subjects, but the opinion first cited, construing section 6 of this act, necessarily has in view only the latter class, since it may hardly be doubted that under this section it was and is requisite that Chinese persons entitled to admission to the United States, being subjects of some other foreign government than that of China, must produce a certificate issued by the proper officials of such government and not by those of China. At all events, the question as it affects Chinese persons, other than Chinese subjects, is beyond the scope of our inquiry, and we may therefore dismiss that branch of the case. In any view it is reasonable to conclude that if the determination reached by me is that consular officers of China in a foreign country are not authorized to issue to Chinese subjects resident therein the certificates prescribed by the act of 1884, a fortiori such consular officers are not authorized to issue these certificates to Chinese persons who are the subjects of such other foreign country. Section 6 of the act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stats., 115), provides that: 46* * * every Chinese person other than a laborer, who may be entitled by said treaty (the treaty of 1880) or this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall obtain the permission of and be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government, or of such other foreign government of which at the time such Chinese person shall be a subject, in each case to be evidenced by a certificate issued by such government." * * * The opinion first cited herein construing the language of this section that the "permission" and "identification" of the Chinese person shall be "evidenced by a certificate issued by such government," reaches the conclusion that certificates accurately conforming to the requirements of section 6 and issued by consular officers of China in a foreign country, duly empowered by the Chinese Government, are valid. The words of the act "such government" point to the "Chinese Government such other foreign government of which at the time such Chinese person shall be a subject." This language is to be taken distributively rather than as allowing an alternative source for the certificate, either to Chinese subjects or to persons of Chinese descent who are not Chinese subjects, and hence the conclusion of the opinion in question quite clearly implies, as before indicated, an application only to subjects of Chinese resident in another foreign country. or * -*- * The situation was changed by Article III of the Convention of 1894 between the United States and China (28 Stats., 1210), which reads: * * To entitle such Chinese subjects as above described to admission into the United States, they may produce a certificate from their Government or the gov |