precaution against the misuse of this significant emblem, the contracting_governments committed themselves to prohibit and prevent, or to recommend the prohibition, of the use of this emblem in their respective countries by anyone other than the sanitary services of the armies and navies and the National Red Cross societies. Prior to the first Treaty of Geneva, there was no known use within the United States of the Red Cross as a commercial trade-mark. Notwithstanding the exclusively humane purpose for which the Red Cross and its emblem were created and adopted, some individuals and organizations thereafter registered in this country the Red Cross name and emblem as a trade-mark. This was done prior to the enactment of laws to make effective provisions of the treaty prohibiting the use of the Red Cross name or emblem for commercial purposes. Evidently those who adopted this trade-mark did so because of a belief that the unique character of the Red Cross name and emblem would have unusual significance and potential commercial value. To great numbers of loyal Americans it seems almost a sacrilege for any person for private material benefit to use an emblem created by international agreement solely for humane purposes and as a protective mark for the establishments caring for the sick and wounded of armies and those engaged in extending aid to them. That such use preceded this Government's exercise of its prohibitive powers should not stand as a bar to the passage of remedial legislation in the public interest. This country today faces the greatest challenge. Millions of its citizens are serving for its preservation. There are there will be sick and wounded on our battle front. It is our solemn obligation to give them every comfort and protection within not only the letter but also the spirit of the Treaty of Geneva. It should now be the declared policy of this Government to give adequate and complete protection to an emblem which, increasingly over the years, has come to be recognized by all nations as the symbol necessary to make possible humanitarian succor to the sick and wounded of armies and the needy and distressed peoples of the world. I most earnestly commend the pending legislation to the favorable action of the Congress. I am sending an identical letter to the Honorable Frederick Van Nuys, chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. MY DEAR MR. BLOOM: The following relates to the bill H. R. 6911, introduced by you on April 9, 1942, to implement article 28 of the convention signed at Geneva on July 27, 1929, by preventing the use of the Red Cross insignia for commercial purposes. I understand that your committee has held extensive hearings on this bill, which naturally has encountered considerable opposition from people who have been using the Red Cross as a trade-mark on their products and in their establishments. It is not my purpose to review those hearings or to undertake to combat the arguments that have been advanced against the proposed measure, but rather to state from an unbiased point of view my understanding or our obligations under the convention. The bill relates to paragraph (a) of article 28 of the convention. The article reads: "The Governments of the High Contracting Parties whose legislation may not now be adequate shall take or shall recommend to their legislatures such measures as may be necessary at all times: "(a) To prevent the use by private persons or by societies other than those upon which this convention confers the right thereto, of the emblem or of the name of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, as well as any other sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whether for commercial or other purposes. "(b) By reason of the homage rendered to Switzerland as a result of the adoption of the inverted Federal colors, to prevent the use, by private persons or by organizations, of the arms of the Swiss Confederation or of signs constituting an imitation thereof, whether as trade-marks, commercial labels, or portions thereof, or in any way contrary to commercial ethics, or under conditions wounding Swiss national pride. "The prohibition mentioned in subparagraphs (a) of the use of signs or designations constituting an imitation of the emblem or designation of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, as well as the prohibition mentioned in subparagraph (b) of the use of the arms of the Swiss Confederation or signs constituting an imitation thereof, shall take effect from the time set in each act of legislation and at the latest 5 years after this convention goes into effect. After such going into effect it shall be unlawful to take out a trade-mark or commercial label contrary to such prohibitions." I understand that there has been discussion before the committee of the words "shall take or shall recommend to their legislatures" such measures as may be necessary to prevent the use of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, etc. I think that you and I, as well as members of the committee, can readily appreciate why this obligation was placed in the alternative form, i. e., "shall take or shall recommend." It was realized that this convention, like many other international agreements, would require implementation. Some of the signatory governments might have been able to implement it by orders or decrees, but it was recognized that governments such as our own would be under the necessity of seeking the assistance of their respective legislative bodies. In such cases the executive could only recommend legislation. The provision in this convention is not unique in this respect. However, our obligation under the convention is not fulfilled merely by making a recommendation. I say this for the reason that the last paragraph of article 28 clearly shows that the prohibition against the use of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross "shall take effect * * * at the latest 5 years after this convention goes into effect." Herein lies our unqualified obligation to restrict the use of the Red Cross insignia to the purposes contemplated by the agreement. Questions have also been raised at the hearings, I believe, as to why, if the convention contemplated an absolute prohibition, on the use of the emblem for commercial purposes, the executive branch of the Government did not earlier recommend legislation for this purpose. I shall not undertake to answer this question except by stating that, as you and I well know, it is not uncommon for administrative officials to allow matters of this sort to drift until there is some impelling reason for action. At the time the act of January 5, 1995, was passed there was no provision in the convention under which we were then operating, namely, that of 1864, regarding the use of the Red Cross emlem for commercial purposes. Yet the Congress restricted the use of persons and corporations who were then lawfully entitled to use it. Later we became a party to the convention of 1906 containing restrictive provisions, and the Congress on June 23, 1910, passed an act confining the use of the emblem to persons, corporations, or associations which had used it for lawful purposes prior to January 5, 1905, but limiting the use to the "same purpose and for the same class of goods." The convention of 1929 broadened the scope of the earlier convention in many particulars and incorporated article 28, which I have quoted above. There can be no doubt, it seems to me, as to our obligation under that article, and it is hardly worthy of us to rely upon what was done in 1910 as a fulfillment of this unqualified obligation. The fact that we failed in 1910 to enact adequate legislation is no excuse for our failure now to comply with our undertaking. The 32 years which have elapsed since the act of 1910 was passed have brought about many changes in world affairs. We are today in the midst of a struggle for human freedom and for the alleviation of the condition of oppressed peoples. We are in immediate need of the full benefits of the Red Cross convention, which has for its purpose the amelioration of human suffering and the condition of the sick and wounded on the field of battle. Commercial interests in many directions have been required to adjust themselves to the war needs of our country and to requirements for the preservation of our domestic institutions. It should be our purpose to surround the Red Cross, a symbol of missions of mercy, with every safeguard against uses likely to impair its effectiveness. None of us has any desire unreasonably to interfere with the legitimate commerce and trade of our people, but I think that all of us have a desire to foster and advance humanitarian endeavors. This is characteristic of our people. I have great doubt as to whether by confining the use of the Red Cross insignia to Red Cross purposes the general course of our commercial endeavors would be greatly affected, certainly not for long. Our business people are too ingenious to permit such a situation to develop. Moreover, I am disinclined to believe that any manufacturer would desire to hold on to a trade-mark if he felt that to do so would prejudice the common good. In my judgment, the common good can best be served by reserving for the exclusive use of the medical services of the Army and Navy and the Red Cross organizations an emblem which has been chosen as their symbol and which we, along with other governments, have by treaty undertaken to protect. I do not think that we should be less liberal in giving effect to these obligations than have other governments parties to the convention. I am, therefore, hopeful and strongly recommend that the bill which you have under consideration shall be enacted into law. Sincerely yours, CORDELL HULL. The Honorable SOL BLOOM, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, May 20, 1942. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. BLOOM: The Surgeon General of the Army, at my request, has appeared before your committee to express the great interest of our Department in the passage of the pending measure H. R. 6911, now under consideration. The War Department believes the enactment of this legislation to be necessary, and in all respects supports the position of the Department of State with respect thereto, as set forth in the letter dated April 1, 1942, from the Under Secretary of State to the President. Our special concern is for the protection of the men in the armed forces and in their interest I desire to emphasize the necessity for a prompt enactment of the pending measure. The Treaty of Geneva provides, through the use of the Red Cross emblem, for the protection of the noncombatant personnel and the sick and wounded of the Army. We, of the United States, intend to honor most sedulously the protection which the Red Cross emblem is intended to provide and we hope that the countries with which our Nation is now at war will in like manner give to this emblem the full measure of sanctity which the treaty demands. However, we are concerned that through the widespread use which is made in our land of this emblem for nonmilitary purposes, there may develop a disregard on the part of our enemies for which we, though innocently, under the present status of affairs, may be charged with responsibility. Only to the extent that we, as a Government, give sanctity and protection to this emblem, can we confidently expect our enemies to do likewise. Modern warfare which makes the far corners of the earth a changing, yet continuous battlefield, intensifies the need for full and complete protection of the emblem of our medical service. One of our very definite tasks is to so indoctrinate the members of our own forces with the meaning and significance of the Red Cross insignia that those of our Army who are entrusted with its use will, at all times, observe in the fullest the national and international regulations under which the use of the emblem is permitted. That our task in this field is rendered more difficult by widespread and continuous display of the emblem in our own country for commercial purposes cannot be challenged. Believing that the pending bill is in the public interest, I hope very much it will be promptly enacted into law. Very sincerely yours, HENRY L. STIMSON, THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, The Honorable SOL BLOOM, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. BLOOM: Your committee in its consideration of H. R. 6911 has given this Department the opportunity through its Surgeon General to state that the Navy is heartily in favor of the enactment of the pending measure. Your committee, I am confident, fully appreciates the keen interest of this Department in this legislation because in our medical operations we have used the Red Cross emblem for many years. The right of the naval forces, together with the Army, to use the emblem was confirmed by the provisions of the Geneva Treaty. No useful purpose would be served in elaborating the reasons why our Government has not enacted such measures as are necessary to prevent the use of the emblem for commercial or other purposes. These reasons are before you in the communication from the Under Secretary of State and the testimony of the legal advisor of the State Department. I want, however, to reiterate that in the considered judgment of the Navy Department this legislation is necessary for the protection of those in the Navy engaged in combat service. The Navy does not intend to use the Red Cross emblem upon any vessel or upon any naval establishment or permit any of the members of the naval forces to wear or display the emblem except in the manner and to the extent provided by the treaty and by approved international practice. We impress upon the members of the Navy engaged in this particular work, the sanctity of this emblem and the importance of doing nothing that will properly give to the enemy any right to question our absolute good faith in carrying out both the letter and spirit of the treaty. We believe this task is rendered more difficult by the present widespread use of the emblem for business purposes. Likewise, we believe that we can expect our enemies to respect more faithfully the provisions for the protection of the Red Cross emblem in caring for members of the naval forces who may be wounded and fall into enemy hands if our own country gives full adherence to the treaty provisions. On behalf of Navy personnel who may need the protection of the emblem of the Red Cross, we urge you to give sympathetic consideration to the discontinuance of the use of this emblem for commercial purposes. Respectfully yours, Hon. SOL BLOOM, FRANK KNOX. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: The committee has heard or will hear from the Army, the Navy, and the Department of State appropriate statements of their reasons for urging favorable action on H. R. 6911. It has also received from one of my special assistants a statement with respect to certain aspects of the problem of enforcement under the present law. I welcome the opportunity to add my voice to those raised in behalf of the pending bill. Experience has proven that it is impracticable to prevent the exploitation of the Red Cross name and emblem under the present statute. Occasional convictions in the more flagrant cases can be obtained, but effective enforcement through criminal prosecution is impossible so long as an exemption is made "for the same purpose and for the same class of goods" of those who used the name or emblem prior to 1905. Not only will juries be reluctant to convict where the case is made to appear at all doubtful, but with modern instrumentalities of advertising which permit broadcasting by press and radio the virtues of so-called Red Cross merchandise, it may be expected that unlawful uses will flower more rapidly than enforcement agencies can possibly cut them down. It may hardly be hoped that convictions obtained in occasional cases will serve as a practical deterrent to similar misuse in other circumstances. Experience in the enforcement of more or less comparable statutes demonstrates unfortunately that the trial of this type of case receives little or no publicity and that the effect of a conviction is generally localized. While I am glad to give assurance that every effort will be made by the Department of Justice within the limits of available resources to enforce the present law, I feel obliged to add that convictions alone, even allowing for more deterrent effect than they are likely to have, seem to me a slight return to those who serve in our armed forces and in our American Red Cross. Their services are entitled to the utmost protection against unintended sabotage at home and intentional reprisals abroad. It seems to me a matter not only of international obligation but also of highest national interest to afford to these services the most complete pro If the tection possible. While the Red Cross name and emblem became identified with a great humanitarian effort by the treaties of 1864-68, it was an act of Congress which created the American National Red Cross and entrusted it with responsibilities in addition to those which the treaties contemplated. Congress is satisfied that the Red Cross name and emblem have long been and are now in the highest degree the identifying symbols of this world-wide service, a service today of the most vital importance to our armed forces abroad and to both our armed forces and civilian activities at home, I believe that it will wish to enact legislation adequate to exclude every competing use. I respectfully suggest that the fundamental question is one of policy. Shall the armed forces of the United States and a great quasi-public organization enlisting more than a fifth of the population of the United States be protected against exploitation of the name and emblem which is theirs by prior use? Or shall we continue to permit commercial exploitation with all its known cons equences? My own convictions as to the appropriate answer require no elaboration. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS BIDDLE, The CHAIRMAN. The Chair regrets to state that the House meets at 11 o'clock today, and there is expected to be a vote immediately after the convening of the House, so we cannot go as far as we would like to. So we will hear today Mr. A. H. Rosenberg, president of the Universal Match Co., who comes from out of town, and the other witnesses, Mrs. August Belmont, Mr. Norman Davis, and Mr. H. J. Hughes, will go over until tomorrow morning, and the committee will recess today and convene tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Mr. Rosenberg. STATEMENTS OF A. H. ROSENBERG, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSAL MATCH CORPORATION, AND SAMUEL I. SIEVERS, GENERAL COUNSEL, UNIVERSAL MATCH CORPORATION The CHAIRMAN. Will you kindly give your full name, and the company that you represent? Mr. ROSENBERG. Adolph H. Rosenberg, Universal Match Corporation, several subsidiaries, included in which are Candy Bros. Manufacturing Co., and Cash Bros. Drug Co. The CHAIRMAN. All of where? Mr. ROSENBERG. St. Louis, Mo. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a prepared statement that you would like to read? Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. How long would it take? Mr. ROSENBERG. I judge about 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Do you prefer not to be interrupted? Mr. ROSENBERG. I would appreciate it, and I will endeavor to answer any questions to the best of my ability. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, please. Mr. ROSENBERG. The companies who manufacture the several products under the Red Cross trade-mark have done so long prior to the act of 1905 and its amendments. The Universal Match Corporation operates 8 factories and 30 branch sales offices throughout the United States, and has its main office at Ferguson, St. Louis, Mo. We have more than 5,500 stockholders scattered over the United States. |