Evening star., 1902-03-12

Porto Rico. But it seems to me that in
inquiring into the applicability of a law
transferred as part of system undOubted
ly intended only for another country when
passed We should pay more attention to
substance than to words. While it IS true
that persons domiciled in the United States
have distinct status such. ii is also
true that the trademark law Is not based
upon anything specific or peculiar in that
status which should lead us to narrow it's
application, since it equally embraces for
eigners who are not residents at all IN the
United States but in their own foreign
countries or tribes Nor is there anything
peculiar in the relations between tho gov
ernment of the United States and u person
domtciled in the United States different
from the relations between the government
of the United States and a person domicilcd
in Porto Rico which should prevent us
from regarding this law as extending to
the latter. The rights, privileges and i'm
munities of citizens as such are not in
yOlVed, and. in short, there is no perceiv-
able reason why Congress should make
distinction between residents of the United
states State, and residents Of Porto Rico In ad-
dition to this the trademark act undoubt-
edly applied to the United States in the
sense of the states, the organized terri
tories and the District of Columbia and
not In the sense of the states united. The
law was therefore broad originally and in
tended to apply to territories as well as
states. To these organized territories
Porto Rico. similarly and completely or
u.
to these suggestions it Is apparent that a
law regulating our arrangements with for
eign countries and referring to treaties and
conventions upon the same subject should
be treated as concerning the United Sla.e:
in very broad sense. Downes v. Bidwell
1S2 Z. S.. PAD
Il am of opinion therefore. that residents
of Porto Rico are entitled to register trade
marks under the act of Congress first r.
ferred to.
LAS for the Philippine Islands. do not
regard them as completely organized terri
tories in contempla ton of Revised Statutes
section 1881. The general course of govern
mental legislation and action concerning
them seems to me to indicate that Congress
and the executive have taken the same
view of them. and the trademark act. es-
pecially that part which concerns persons
domict1ed in the United States. IS not
treaty or convention or other international
act such that the phrase the United States
employed in 1t has been regarded by the
courts extending to all places. however
remote, within our dominions. Moreover.
the phrase United States Is converted in
may well be regarded as too narrow to en-
brace an after-acquired archipelago 5000
miles across the ocean.
II think. therefore, that the residents of
the Philippines are not, as such. entitled to
the privileges of the trademark law.
Cuba Is a foreign country. and persons
domiciled there are not domiciled in the
United States. The treaties of Spain no
treaty or convention with Cuba, unless
what Is known as the Piatt amendment C31
Stat. L.. S9D may be regarded as such.
That does not concern trademarks.
''Cuba is at present governed by our
selves. and the law there purporting to give
similar privileges to citizens of the United
States as those given by our trademark
law general order No. 16O will doubtless
be continued. since it Is itself but a contin-
uation OF the arrangement made by our
treaty with Spain.
Cuba may therefore be regarded as one
of the countries with which we have re-
ciprocal arrangements. and a person located
there Is entitled to register trademarks un-
der our law. Respectfully,
(Signed) ''P. G.. KNOX.
Attorney General"
'"The Secretary OF the Interior"