On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
As we are going to press, the War Revenue Bill is reported to have been favorably acted upon by the conferees, and it is probable that the bill will be passed and be put in the hands of the President by the time the present issue is published. It is with a great deal of pleasure that we have to that the so- called Chilton amendment, which has caused so much consternation among manufacturers. has been elimi nated from the bill. This bill was originally passed by the Senate, and, in justice to that body, it must be said that we believe such a bill would not have been passed under ordinary circumstances; but those who considered the bill unwise and radical in its nature were unable to offer such opposition to its passage as they deemed necessary, owing to the urgent nature of the bill as a whole. The object of the bill was to place a graduated tax on all articles sold in boxes or other parcels, which had been prepared or manufactured un der letters patent, or which were sold under trade marks. In the first place, the joinder of patents and trade marks had nothing in reason to justify it. They have nothing whatever in common. The amendment was evidently based on the supposition that both inven tors and owners of trademarks depend for their pro perty rights on the national government. This is in no sense true of the owners of trademarks, and if in ventors receive rights it is simply as an inducement to disclose a knowledge of their inventions to the public. As to trademark!!, it would seem that their very na ture and purpose had been lost sight of. A merchant or manufacturer adopts a mark solely that his goods may be identified by the purchaser, and it is a guar antee of good faith. If the goods turn out to be of in different quality, the purchaser can thus avoid buying again. To tax them, therefore, would only invite omis sion of the use of the trademark, and this would mean simply the suppression of any guarantee or any means by which the purchaser could guard against a second deception, and would give the advantage to the dis honest and unskilled merchant or manufacturer, who puts out goods without a mark of identification, to the detriment of the public. Reputable manufacturers and merchants would, therefore, have been compelled to use their marks only to such a nominal extent as would preserve their property rights. Trademarks do not depend on statutory enactment. They primarily are protected by common law. In deed, only trademarks in use in foreign trade or trade with Indian tribes are registerable. So sacred have trademarks been held from medieval times, that even the marks of foreigners have been upheld in the lead ing countries of the world (often without registration), even when a state of war existed with the country of which the foreigner was a subject. Clearly a tax should be impartially fixed on the goods of a certain character or description, and not on the mere trademark, which simply stands for the good name of the reputable merchant, otherwise the man having no reputation and no trademark can undersell him who honestly and fearlessly puts on his personal mark guaranteeing his goods. A tax on patented goods also would be prohibitive in most cases, because the patentee could not compete with the unpatented and untaxed goods of his rivals. The proposition must be looked on as. a strange one indeed that discriminates against honesty, enterprise and inventive talent. The great speech of Senator Platt, of Connecticut, in 1884, showing the necessity of encouraging inventors, may be read with profit by his fellow legislators. It would be indeed strange if the present period, in which we are reaping the reward of having encouraged in ventors, should have been selected as the appropriate time to place a fine on the maker of patented goods. It is gratifying to note that the conferees were led to perceive the mischievous consequences of the bill be fore it was returned to either House for consideration. We have to congratulate ourselves upon the very sensible stand which has been taken in regard to what would have been a most harmful measure.
