The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-07-10
Those Who Employ Mongolians
Cannot Use It on Their
Goods.
THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTION
1t May Cause Trouble but the Asso.
citation Viii Not Go Against
Public S. ntiment.

No member of the Manufacturers and
Producers Association who in any way
employs Chinese can use the associations
home-industry trademark on his goods.
This edict went forth yesterday at the
meeting of the directors.
The trademark committee, consisting
of ]. w. Kerr. A. Darnham and s. Il.
Tacv recommended the following rules
and regulations, which were adopted:
The trademark shall be permitted only on
articles OF California manufacture or produc-
ton.
The use of the trademark shall be limited to
members of the Manufacturers and Producers
Association of California in good standing
License signed by the president and attested
by the secretary shall be issued to mem bers
emitting them to the use of the trademark for
one year.
1t shall be compulsory upon all members
using the trademark to put their name and adj
dress on the goods in conjunction with said
trademark.
Applications shall be made in writing by
mem bers desiring to use the trademark, and it
shall be fully stated in said application how,
where and upon what goods the use OF the
trademark is contemplate
Members found to be using the trademark
upon articles other than those stated in said
license, or on articles not of California manu-
tacture o. production, shall be expelled from
the association and the license be cancelled.
Any person or persons found to be using said
ton shall be prosecuted according to law. = =
1t was J. w. Kerr who sprung the Chi
nese question by asking if the trademark
committee would be authorized to issue
the trademark To California manufacture
ers who employ Chinese in the manufac-
ture of goods. H. j. Crocker suggested
that such matter could be held in abey-
ance for time. This brought out NJ. J.
Keller, who said: II know where there
are several manufacturers who keep few
white people for display purposes so they
can say that they employ white labor,
while at the same time they have twenty
five to fifty Mongolians doing most of the
work. This is not fair to the public"
THAT may be true" answered Mr..
Croker "but can we dictate to the manu-
tacturers as TO how and by whom their
goods shall be made? We are treading on
delicate ground. By discriminating among
our members anil by saying that this man
may use the trademark and that man may
no, think rather savors of boycott"
Mr.. Keller asked if Mr.. Crocker would
issue license to use the trademark to a
Chinese manufacturer in this State, to
which Mr.. Croker answered that he did
not think that he would.
Nv hat, then, is the difference, so far as
the principle is concerned ?" asked J. P
Currler, whether we issue our trade
mark 10 white man who employs Chi
h lp?'
The question remained unanswered,
but still Mr.. Croker wanted the matter
postponed, and referred again to treading
upon dangerous ground.
A. Sbarboro said that the public long
ago decided the Chinese question, and it is
not polite for the association to encourage
Chinese labor in any way.
Mr.. Keller introduced the following
resolution, which, after little discussion,
was adopted:
RESOLVED, That the committee on trademark
of this board be instructed to refuse the
issuance of q license to any manufacturers or
producers who do not employ exclusively free
white labor.
And SO the matter was settled, and
when the Manufacturers and Producers
Associations trademark appears on any
goods or wares the public may rest as
sured that neither Chinese nor convict
hands had anything to do with their
manufacture.