exempting from the prohibition of the commercial use of the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation any person, corporation, or association that actually used or whose assignors actually used a design or insignia identical with or similar to that described herein for any lawful purpose for 10 years next preceding the effective date of this actwhich was approved June 20, 1936. That is all, Mr. Chairman, so far as I am concerned. The CHAIRMAN. Miss Boardman, would you care for the sake of clarifying the record, to enlarge on the statement you made with reference to H. R. 22311 of the Sixty-first Congress that is the present law that is under discussion? May I read you from this testimony, on page 83 of this document. This is Mr. Henderson, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is speaking: Mr. HENDERSON. Now, that is a vested property right. Mr. DENBY. Pardon me, I would like to ask Miss Boardman whether I am correct in my views that the theory of the Red Cross is that they do not wish to disturb any vested rights. Miss BOARDMAN. We do not want to disturb those rights, and we suggested that such trade-marks be called to their attention and the class of goods be specified. We were perfectly willing to have that added. But we find that the law protects all sorts of emblems of fraternal orders, and that trade-marks are not allowed which use the coats of arms of States. Our own national flag cannot be used, and State flags cannot be used. There is an absolutely prohibitory provision in the patent law against such use. Turning over to page 84 we find the following: Miss BOARDMAN. We do not want to interfere with such rights, and we could not interfere with them, but at the same time we want to have a provision in the law so that people cannot continue to use the Red Cross, particularly as it is used now. Do you want to clarify the record with reference to the statements that you made all through the hearings at that time as to the rights that these people have who trade-marked their products before 1905? Miss BOARDMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I may say, in the first place, that the Red Cross was not in a position to act against or for any organization in the use of the red cross. That was a governmental duty, not that of the Red Cross. The law stood as it did and it had not been changed in the statute books. But we seemed to have two conflicting laws, one law that would permit the use of that insignią if it was used prior to 1905, and the other law, which was engendered by the Treaty of Geneva, in which we promised that the emblem and the name should be used for only definitely specified purposes, as set out in that treaty. The two laws are in conflict. And it seems to me the question is which law should predominate. We believe that the law of the treaty is the stronger. It is an international agreement between nations. We have signed that treaty and we promised in that agreement that all countries that had not a proper protection of the use of the insignia, as the treaty provided, should within 5 years request of its legislatures such changes in the law as would properly protect the insignia. That has been, as I said in my few remarks, too long delayed. During the last war we were conscious of the need of such protection. But we are not a military people. A war is over and we want to forget it as soon as possible. We believe that we will never have another war. The CHAIRMAN. The committee would be pleased to hear any other additional statements you wish to make. Mr. HUGHES. I was about to give two other examples showing the extension of use which, legally, is so difficult to combat. A concern having the right to use the Red Cross emblem on a list of products, manufactures other products upon which that name cannot be legally attached, but in advertising their general line of products, they cause to be inserted in drug stores large Red Cross streamers and banners displaying Red Cross products, so creating in the minds of the buying public the impression that each and every product manufactured by them is a so-called Red Cross product. The deception is carried to such an extent that a salesman traveling over his territory selling tooth brushes on which no Red Cross emblem can be attached legally has on his automobile large Red Cross emblems, Thus as he goes through the country with the name of the manufacturer on the car with the Red Cross emblem giving the impression that each and every article in the entire line is a product which is a Red Cross product. Mr. JOHNSON. May I suggest a question? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. Did I understand that some of these people travel around selling tooth brushes, who have no right to use the Red Cross emblem? Mr. HUGHES. They are salesmen. Mr. JOHNSON. Some of their products do not have the Red Cross? Mr. HUGHES. I do not know what was in their automobile, but from the reports of the investigation that came from the Northwest, the car seemed to be loaded with tooth brushes. Whether it had some other articles in it, I do not know. I would like to answer, before any other questions are put to me, the question which the chairman raised, namely, If we have the right under the law to prosecute these cases, why is it not a simple thing to stop each and every one of them? First, I state we have in our files some 3,500 different cases upon which we have correspondence, and yet, as I go through the country, I am rarely in a city that I do not see illegal display of the Red Cross. It would require an enormous amount of technical help, and a tremendous amount of help from the courts to bring, as we perhaps have the right to do, to bring civil action, or we might follow the other course prescribed by the Congress, apply to the Department of Justice for the institution of criminal actions. We have had a number of the so-called border-line cases before the Department of Justice for review and the general feeling is that it is extremely difficult where there are so many widespread uses, so many displays of the Red Cross emblem on all types of products. It is extremely difficult to obtain conviction in cases before a criminal jury where the criminal offense has to be affirmatively shown to exist. We, of course, as an organization, have no way of changing that particular position, but I do know that in several instances where we have sent over for investigation to the Department of Justice certain of these more aggrieved cases, that action has not been taken, and whether the reason is sound or not, I, of course, do not know, but basically, the Red Cross has not wanted to appear in the courts itself as a litigant and it has tried over the last 23 years with which I am familiar, to arrange in every instance amicable adjustments of these matters. We have attempted by correspondence, by interviews, and so on, to obtain agreements that uses which seemed to us to be violative of the statute would be discontinued. That work has increased steadily over the past and has grown to such proportions that it requires a tremendous amount of time to combat. The Red Cross wishes to leave with the committee one other thought which is not included in that letter. The Red Cross has to deal closely with the Army and Navy. It is in close conjunction with the armed forces in many of their activities and in particular has been declared to be the agency which, within military reservations, is the only agency which will be allowed to perform services for the military and naval authorities. The widespread use of the emblem, the disregard for it, the display of it on all sides, in every shop, in every store, the hearing of it over the radio, is, we believe, a factor which the committee will want to take into consideration in the broader field as to whether such distribution and use of the emblem may not, itself, have serious harm in the field of sabotage. That is, the Red Cross emblem has come to be recognized by police authorities as a credential, and people displaying it are permitted to enter restricted zones. Perhaps they may even be allowed to enter defense plants, places of that kind, or even Army reservations, and we have the feeling that the mere casual display of the emblem, the longer it is allowed to appear, the wider it is disseminated, the greater the use of it, the more danger lurks in that particular field. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hughes, could that not be regulated without destroying certain rights that certain people have? If you do not mind, I have been giving this subject a great deal of study and I have gone back into the record, especially the record before this committee, and I suppose you are acquainted with the hearings that we had on April 21, 1910, with reference to legislation at that time, similar to this, that is, concerning those people having vested rights before January 1905. This committee, at that time, held quite extensive hearings and I agree with you-you have a great deal of cause for complaint, but in reading over the hearings, I would like to ask you to read from the hearings at that time and ask you to kindly explain to the committee. Mr. HUGHES. I have to take cognizance of that particular committee hearing. We tried to find a copy of those hearings in our files, but could not. The CHAIRMAN. Why did you not come here? You could find anything up here. Mr. HUGHES. I am sorry I did not think of it. We asked the Government Printing Office. The CHAIRMAN. This is by Mr. Denby, addressing Miss Boardman: Mr. DENBY. Pardon me, I would like to ask Mrs. Boardman whether I am correct in my view that the theory of the Red Cross is that they do not wish to disturb any vested rights. Mrs. BOARDMAN. We do not want to disturb those rights, and we suggest that such trade-marks be called to their attention and the class of goods be specified. We are perfectly willing to have that class of goods we would be perfectly willing to have that added. Now, again: * ** * Mr. DENBY. We want to give that protection so far as it possibly can be done (speaking for the committee). Now, all I want to know is whether the Red Cross recognizes that desire not to attempt to interfere with vested rights in the use of the emblem. Mrs. BOARDMAN. Yes. Mr. DENBY. Which vested right had accrued before the Red Cross came into existence. Is that it? Am I to understand that you do not wish to interfere with any vested rights which accrued prior to January 5, 1905? Mrs. BOARDMAN. We do not want to interfere with such rights and we could not interfere with them. And so forth. Now, Miss Boardman was speaking for the Red Cross, and there are several other things I would like to have you read, too, Mr. Hughes. I think you would find it very enlightening. Mr. HUGHES. I would be delighted. The CHAIRMAN. And also the report of the committee at that time, and other reports. Do you agree at this time with what Miss Boardman said at the hearing before the committee on April 21, 1910? Mr. HUGHES. Well, that is an awfully long story, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Miss Boardman answered it "Yes." Mr. HUGHES. I have just a few observations to make. First, that the use of the word "vested" may be avoiding the question. It is just a question in the field of law whether these are or are not vested rights. Secondly, Miss Boardman was speaking at a time when the Red Cross had less than 36,000 members in the United States, and we are speaking at a time when our organization has a membership of probably 17,000,000 members. She was speaking at a time before the then so-called "civilized nations" of the world had met for a review of the Treaty at Geneva, and for amendment thereto. In 1929 the signatories to the first Treaty of Geneva and other powers met, and the Treaty of Geneva was strengthened in this whole field of protecting the emblem against commercial use. That convention provided that all signatory powers would take, or recommend to their legislatures effecting implementing legislation to be effective not later than five years The CHAIRMAN (interposing). That was in 1928. Mr. HUGHES. 1929, I think it was. The CHAIRMAN. 1929. Mr. HUGHES. And adhered to by the United States, I think, in 1932. The CHAIRMAN. That is the reason the President sent his message. Mr. HUGHES. That is the reason the President sent the message. And secondly, and finally, the Red Cross movement throughout the world, and the effectiveness on that movement throughout the world in 1908, as compared with 1942, presents a vastly different situation. Our own organization, as I say, was a modest sized small child when Miss Boardman was then testifying, and what the attitude may now be is quite different. I would like to say also when Miss Boardman was testifying the Supreme Court of the United States had not taken away from the commercial users of the United States flag the right to use the flag, but the Supreme Court later on did that very thing, and our feeling is that this symbol of the Red Cross which was adopted in honor of Switzerland, and the Congress of the United States has passed appropriate legislation prohibiting all commercial use of the Swiss flag in the United States, is entitled to like and effective protection. The situation which existed when those early attempts were made to find the right and proper thing to do has in basic respects changed today. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mind an interruption there? Mr. HUGHES. No, sir; but I would like to give the answer to your question, Mr. Chairman. The Red Cross belongs to everybody, it belongs to everybody in this room. It is not mine or yours, and we should regret any individual harm that any particular manufacturer might say they were suffering. We know, as a matter of fact, that some of the biggest commercial users of Red Cross emblems have been compelled to adopt different emblems for the sale of their goods in other countries, such as England, Canada, South Africa, and Australia. They cannot use it there. We say a treaty is something which deserves the most painstaking observance after it has been ratified by the United States, and the ratification of the 1929 Treaty of Geneva by the United States carried with it the responsibility for putting the United States in the same field in which other civilized countries are, with reference to the exclusive use of this emblem by the Army and Navy and their hospital units needed to obtain the status of neutrality in times of war. You have seen a picture of the Greek ship which left New York last week. On its hull were emblazoned huge Red Cross emblems. Today we are working through the International Red Cross with Japan to gain consent to have supplies sent to interned American civilians and American soldiers who are prisoners of war. It is the only possible way that such relief under a neutral emblem can possibly be given; and we finally have to say, and we say it with individual reluctance as it affects any commercial concern, that if the greater good requires that sacrifice, they ought to be willing to make that sacrifice. Mr. TINKHAM. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tinkham. Mr. TINKHAM. Are you aware that precisely what you are proposing to the committee was proposed in 1895, 1898, 1900, 1905, and 1910, and also 1919, and several hearings were had, including the one that has been quoted by the chairman, and that each time any proposal such as you are making, has been rejected by the Congress because they thought it was undue and unfair to legitimate and established businesses? Are you aware of those attempts? Mr. HUGHES. No, sir; I was not aware of those earlier attempts. We have no record of them at the office. I would be very glad to get from you the source of the references. The CHAIRMAN. We will give them to you. |