Penalties of fine and imprisonment are prescribed for forgery of trade-marks which have thus been registered, or for fraudulently placing on one's own goods marks belonging to others; for selling or offering to sell forged marks, or knowingly selling goods or merchandize on which another person's mark is fraudulently placed; for fraudulently changing marks; for using such fraudulently changed marks, &c.; second conviction to be punished by double penalty provided for first offences, if committed within five years of each other; goods and merchandize bearing forged marks, and the implements employed in making them, to be confiscated. In the case of infringement of British rights, for the protection of which the measures prescribed by the above-mentioned Regulation have been taken, by (a.) An Ottoman subject, resort must be had to the Ottoman Tribunals ; (b.) By subjects of other foreign Powers than Turkey, resort should be had in each case to the Consular Tribunal of that Power of which the defendant is a subject; (c.) By a British subject, resort should be had to the British Consular Tribunals. In all these cases, however, it would be advisable for an intending British litigant to take the advice of some local lawyer before actually commencing legal proceedings, as difficulties often arise as to the exact procedure to be followed, and as to which may be the competent Court of Jurisdiction. January 27, 1896. NOTES exchanged between Great Britain and Germany respecting the British Occupation of Wei-hai Wei.-Berlin, April 20, 1898. Sir F. Lascelles to Herr von Bülow. YOUR EXCELLENCY, England formally declares that, in establishing herself at Weihai Wei, she has no intention of injuring or contesting the interests of Germany in the Province of Shantung, or of creating difficulties for her in that province. It is especially understood that England will not construct any railroad communication from Wei-hai Wei, and the district leased therewith, into the interior of the province. Herr von Bülow. I avail, &c., FRANK C. LASCELLES. (Translation.) Herr von Bülow to Sir F. Lascelles. M. L'AMBASSADEUR, Foreign Office, Berlin, April 20, 1898. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of this day's date, in which you textually made the following declaration in the name of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of England: "England formally declares that, in establishing herself at Weihai Wei, she has no intention of injuring or contesting the rights and interests of Germany in the Province of Shantung, or of creating difficulties for her in that province. It is especially understood that England will not construct any railroad communication from Weihai Wei, and the district leased therewith, into the interior of the province." I hereby take note of this declaration in the name of the Imperial Government. At the same time I avail myself, &c., Sir F. Lascelles. B. VON BÜLOW. GERMAN NOTIFICATION respecting the Termination of the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and the German Customs Union of the 30th May, 1865, and of the Treaty of Navigation between Great Britain and Prussia of the 16th August, 1865.—Berlin, July 31, 1898.* (Translation.) THE Treaty of Commerce between the German Customs Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of the 30th May, 1865,† terminated with the expiration of the 30th day of this month, in consequence of its denunciation by Her Britannic Majesty's Government. At the same time the Treaty of Navigation between Prussia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of the 16th *Published in Berlin, August 2, 1898. + Vol. LV, page 34. * August, 1865, has also expired, in accordance with the provisions of Article VI. Berlin, July 31, 1898. (For the Minister for Foreign Affairs,) RICHTHOFEN. PAPERS relating to the Arbitration in the Case of Mr. Alderman Ben Tillett.-1898. No. 1.-Convention between Great Britain and Belgium referring to Arbitration the Case of Mr. Ben Tillett.-Signed at Brussels, March 19, 1898. [See Vol. XC, page 5.] No. 2.-Memorandum on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty in support of their Claim against the Government of His Majesty the King of the Belgians with regard to the Expulsion from Belgium of Mr. Ben Tillett. ON the morning of Thursday, the 20th August, 1896, Mr. Ben Tillett, a British subject, arrived at Antwerp by steamer from Harwich. It was his intention, which, but for the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, he would have carried out, to return from Antwerp to Harwich by the steamer leaving Antwerp on the evening of Friday, the 21st August. 2. At 3:30 P.M. on the afternoon of Friday, the 21st August, Mr. Tillett was arrested in Antwerp by the Belgian police and taken to a police office. He protested against the arrest, and asked on what charge he was arrested. The police officer having control of the police office answered that no specific charge was preferred against Mr. Tillett; but that he was arrested in pursuance of orders given by the Belgian Minister of Justice. 3. Mr. Tillett was detained at the said police office for a period of three or four hours until after 7 P.M. on the 21st August. He was then taken by the Belgian police to the prison at Antwerp. On his arrival at the said prison, though no accusation or criminal charge was preferred against him, Mr. Tillett was in all respects treated as a criminal or as a person arrested on a criminal charge. He was stripped naked, searched, and placed in a prisoner's cell. The cell was damp, full of foul odours, and the walls, the floor, and *Vol. LV, page 30. the bed were covered with filth. Upon Mr. Tillett's complaint, he was removed to another cell, the condition of which, except for the bed, was equally filthy, repulsive, and injurious to health. 4. On being incarcerated, as herein before stated, Mr. Tillett requested permission to communicate with his wife, his friends, and Her Britannic Majesty's Consul-General at Antwerp. On the morning of Saturday, the 22nd August, he made a written request to the like effect. These requests were disregarded. 5. On Saturday, the 22nd August, Mr. Tillett was on several occasions taken from his cell into the presence of various officials, and on each of these occasions he was compelled to wear the dress reserved for criminals and prisoners, namely, the cowl or the cloak worn by prisoners in the prison at Antwerp when outside their cells. 6. At 4 P.M. on Saturday, the 22nd August, Mr. Tillett was informed that he would be liberated in two hours, and finally, soon after 6 P.M., he was allowed to leave the prison, and was escorted to the steamer which left Antwerp that evening. 7. Mr. Tillett was thus subject to arrest and imprisonment for a continuous period of twenty-six and a-half hours. No charge was ever made against Mr. Tillett, and no sufficient explanation even given to him of the reason of his arrest. 8. Throughout his imprisonment Mr. Tillett suffered from cold, from damp, and from the absence of sufficient and wholesome food. By reason of these circumstances he suffered serious injury to his health. Such injury included severe chill, inflammation of the respiratory organs, shock to the nervous system, and complete prostration, from which Mr. Tillett has never wholly recovered. Mr. Tlilett has since his incarceration been unable to pursue his vocation, and has been obliged to proceed to Australia for his health. 9. For these reasons, and on the grounds hereinafter set forth, it is submitted that the Government of His Majesty the King of the Belgians are liable to make adequate compensation for the matters complained of, and having regard to the indignities suffered by Mr. Tillett, to the expenses incurred by him through his illness, and to the loss he has sustained by not having been able to attend to his business, the sum claimed on his behalf by way of compensation is 3,000l.; and further, it is prayed that the Arbitrator shall adjudge that the Government of His Majesty the King of the Belgians should pay the amount of the necessary costs of both parties incident to the arbitration. 10. As to the question of the liability of the Government of His Majesty the King of the Belgians for the acts complained of, even assuming that a State has the right to expel a foreigner from its territory, and in case of his refusal to go, or in case of other necessity, a right to use force or restraint in such a manner as may be reasonably necessary to secure his leaving the country within a reasonable time; it is submitted that, in the absence of any criminal charge against the foreigner, the State has otherwise no power, according to the accepted usages and principles of international law, to imprison or use force to the person of the foreigner. In the present case, therefore, it might have been justifiable for the Belgian Government to have requested Mr. Tillett to leave Antwerp by the steamer leaving for England at 7 P.M. on Friday, the 21st August, and, if necessary, to have used force or means of restraint to compel him to do so. But it is submitted that the Belgian Government had no right to subject Mr. Tillett to the treatment he underwent, or to the indignities he sustained; and further, no right to detain him in their territory, and so prevent him leaving Belgium by the steamer on the 21st August, as he would otherwise have done. 11. The following authorities among others bear out the above propositions and explain the present position of international law on the subject: (i.) Bluntschli, "Das Moderne Völkerrecht," Book V, chap. IV, § 384: "Wird ein gehörig legitimirter Fremder ohne Grund verhindert, das Land zu betreten oder grundlos oder in ungebührlicher Form weggewiesen, so ist sein Heimatstaat veranlasst, wegen Verletzung des völkerrechtlichen Verkehrs Beschwerde zu führen und je nach umständen Genugthuung zu fordern." Traduit de l'Allemand par M. G. Laudy, MDCCCLXX. "Le Droit International Codifié:" "§ 384. Lorsqu'un Gouvernement interdit sans motif l'entrée du territoire à un étranger dûment légitimé, ou l'expulse sans cause et avec des formes blessantes, l'État dont cet étranger est citoyen a le droit de réclamer contre cette violation du droit international et de demander au besoin satisfaction." (ii.) Heffter, "Das Europäische Völkerrecht," Book I, chap. III, § 33, VI; 5th edition, 1867: "Kein Staat kann die gehörig legitimirten Unterthanen eines anderen befreundeten Staates zurückweisen, oder, nachdem sie einmal von ihm aufgenommen sind, wieder ausweisen, ohne bestimmte ihrer Regierung mitzutheilende Ursachen. In keinem Falle darf es in unmittelbar kränkender Form geschehen, wenn jene nicht durch ihr Verhalten einen zureichenden Grund zu einer solchen Behandlung geben." Heffter, "Le Droit International de l'Europe," 4o édition Française, 1883, § 33, Proposition 6: "Aucune Puissance ne peut refuser de recevoir sur son territoire |