8 X030883952 :~ Ss \ PARA WAN RV QV RM MAAy vee Rr ea MMIII LLL Be Mite a the Ly Wy Lape, SN \ MH A LE Ui os yy Ds : Les EL pees7, ve CMO eh < MY pO wail ies cy ees = — SAIC SEAR z SEAN mae ETA ANATANAN OIE SRN SAREE . 7 oe & ROSS . eS SSW RAE SRN e. SOClp y yi: - Uithdidlady ¢ tll Yj LLL es , SIRI: PIII STOR ON, bE “f, Z We Wt WE 4, 75 eI Le Mite, ME Ze LEE Z Le yp Wiis ie Ls 4% Caw BN. YM Qt | % y cy SSS WAAAY AALALALALAAHLATTALA AA MAOiUAAAViGiGG A GAM Ao SSSReeeterres ee ere ee Ot SARA SE AT,“ = — = SS x = : BAY Ss SS ‘ St ~ SAN5 its members into veritable Colonial Dames. Many insisted that the right to become a Colonial Dame was one of inheritance, in- alienable and inherent in the nature of things, a sort of title of nobility. Such a preposterous idea was never held by the found- ers—tar too clever to propose notions of primogeniture, or seek to establish an aristocracy in the Republic of the United States, under the innocent form of a patriotic Society. Indeed, the very name “ Dame”’ had, in the days of our grandmothers, of two or three generations back, become practically obsolete, and “ Colonial,’ to ancestors fighting for independence of the Mother Country, by no means a desirable appellation; the join- ing of these two words suggested ante-Revolutionary times, quaintness and picturesqueness, while “ of America” intimated the largeness of scope and barred the idea of only local interest —the whole an eminently fitting title for a Society of such pur- pose and aim. When a vote upon its adoption was taken at a preliminary meeting held at the house of Mrs. J. K. Van Rensse- laer, No. 102 Lexington Avenue, New York City, May 16th, 1890, the votes stood thus: Ave: Mrs. King, Mrs. Gardiner, Mrs. Martin, Mrs. J. K.. Van Rensselaer No: Mrs, Ikamb: Wins: Fairfax, Mas, Trevor. At the next meeting, held the 23rd of the same month, the Constitution and By-Laws were adopted, Article First of the Constitution providing “that this Society shall be known by the name, style and title of ‘The Colonial Dames of America.’” (See Case on Appeal, p. 263, fols. 787-788, Minutes of meeting, May 22rd, 18090, Plaintiti’s exhibit B_) The society grew apace, and its membership extended into various States. No invasion of its title, or, to use a law term, piracy of the name, occurred during the first year of its existence, but in the following year there came to the knowledge of the Board of Managers that an attempt would be made in Philadelphia to es- tablish a society in that city which would adopt the title of this Society. The Philadelphia members of this Society became alarmed and asked, in order to strengthen their position, per- mission to form a Chapter there. This was at once granted by the head of the Society in New York, or, as it had become known, “the Parent Society,’ in distinction from its Chapters. Steps were taken in accordance with the Constitution, to form the Pennsylvania Chapter, members there inviting some outside la- dies to join the Chapter. These numbered fourteen and accepted the invitation, but, in a few days, finding the Constitution and By-Laws of the Society obliged allegiance to the fountain-head in New York, resigned, but later, some of them returning again to our Philadelphia Chapter, became most earnest and efficient members. Others of these fourteen joined the Society which at that very time was forming in Philadelphia an opposition Society ol caemaenca ti I ETE LLL ODL LOE LLL LILLE LE TLEDELLE NE, ULE T OTL Mp ORL OR AL TENA OLE. EH LEELA IASI EO LOI LIS NON STG Sse aT PN EAR Is aha REP as a a a A Pee ee ee ei a ad ate le is hte a S hh le tet ies ina tit a eiie hi a ae ens saetaiat 3 bade sil ie foie ile ate " 5 ae “ - i Aa o at lth alt at te ht tk Piel gn a es ae Ta Irs Zeer rs tt FEF Oe ae ey On ee = Se rf Ss rae Sua x oS RR eee Se RCO “ SARA . eS ~ . ; :Tl HAMIL MLM Al teen aL LLL LLL We i Ly Vii Lt we ey Zz , EWR 6 and adopting the title of the original; the chief idea of this alien Society being that of States’ rights. No opposition was offered to it as a society for patriotic work, as it had been one of the ob- jects of the original society to inspire just such work, but a very urgent appeal was made to it, not to invade the title of the origi- nal Society, as it would cause confusion and be detrimental. (See Case Records on Appeal.) | pace In this connection it must be noticed that no split or division has ever occurred in this Society. The fact that some fourteen ladies from outside joined the Pennsylvania Chapter and in a few days withdrew, should not even give color to such a miscon- struction; their number being insignificant, numerically so un- important as to bar all idea of carrying away with them any of the property of the Society, title or other belongings. Not even had they been members of the Society for any appreciable time, which they had not been, could they have done so. (See Case on Appeal, pp. 370-371, fols. 1110-1112.) There have, of course, been changes in this as in all societies; members have dropped out singly, from death and other causes, and new members have come in and taken their places, but no great exodus has ever occurred since its foundation. It will thus be seen that from the very start this Society has had a struggle for existence, and the first attack upon it came from those to whom it had extended a friendly hand. The in- jury done it has never been really known, owing to the unwilling- ness of ladies to appear in Court and testify to certain facts. The assuming of its title by other societies has resulted in numerous injuries. Women have mistakenly entered them, supposing that they were becoming members of the original Society, the result being a loss to it of membership, social fellowship, and to its treasury of funds, thus crippling its usefulness. It has further been charged with wrangles and quarrels, but this unfair infer- ence has been owing to the lack of knowledge of the true state of the case. It was necessary to oppose the organizations formed in various States, following the lead of the piratical Society of Pennsylvania, and known as “State Dames,” otherwise the original Society would have had a speedy ending, and, as it was, incalculable injury was done it. BILLS IN CONGRESS. A bill to grant a National Charter to The Colonial Dames of America was introduced in the 52nd Congress, first session, January 7th, 1892, and referred to the Committee on the Library. Mr. Cummings, from that Committee, submitted the following: “ The objects of the Society are deemed worthy of encourage- ment and as the incorporation involves no expense upon the Gov- ernment, the Committee recommends the passage of the Bill.” RENN SAN ANSMERAATK XM. 0 WA ROE EN AAA OTA AAA AAA AAA7 (See Appendix, Bill H. R. 1519, and Report from Committee on Library.) No sooner had it become known that the original Society had taken this step, than quickly upon its heels,some four months later, on May 26th, 1892, did the usurping Society apply to the very same Congress for a National Charter to be granted it as The National Society of the Colonial Dames of America! The Session closed, however, without further action, and it was hoped that the matter would be dropped, but the opposition Society again presented bills in the 54th Congress, first session, in their memorial making sundry charges against this Society which obliged it to defend itself and to traverse those unwarrantable charges. (See Appendix, Bills H. R. QOIO, S. 2215, 5200 Cone gress, first Session, and Bills S. 3215, S. 3087, S. 3356, with memorials. ) Very earnest and vigorous efforts were made by this Society to defend its rights. A committee for this purpose was formed, consisting of: Miss Boudinot, New York. Mrs. J. Lyon Gardiner, New York. Mrs. Paul Dana, New York. Mrs. H. Irvine Keyser, Baltimore. Mrs. William T. Wilson, Baltimore. Mrs. William Gilmor, Baltimore. Mrs. Tunstall Smith, Baltimore. Mrs. Henry B. Keyser, Baltimore. Mrs. Charles Segrave, Baltimore. Mrs. George McClellan, Philadelphia. Mrs. George Woolsey Hodge, Philadelphia. Miss Susan Palfrey Lee, Washington. Miss Emily Tuckerman, Washington. Miss Silvie de Grasse Fowler, Washington. This involved various interviews with eminent legal authori- ties, among whom were the Hon. Joseph Choate, of New York, and the Hon. Rodman Paul, of Philadelphia, whose opinions were most kindly given, and to whom the Society owes a debt of gratitude, as also, to the two gentlemen who represented our cause before the Committee of Congress: the Hon. Franklin Bartlett of New York, and Mr. Skipwith Wilmer, of Baltimore. Petitions were written and Senators interviewed, but, in all cases, only that our cause should receive due attention and simple justice was asked. The opposing Society having at this time passed their Bill through both Houses of Congress and it having been referred to a Committee, on February 13th, 1897, the two Societies were summoned to a hearing before this Committee of Congress, known as the Committee on the Library. ~ ACKEADNANA a . = soe S : a * Skt oe SOON 7 So NS < SOS a & SANS y SAREE SEIS S SS . WS . SEO OS WS S SN . OS . eS S SSS SSS CESS aren SS SS SASS SoS iN . SO . nei. ree hLDA LETT ES PEALE LH os = AMEE ee, enerneaT a a SEE ir i NEO IOLA LLL ETI APT es e8 Mr. Wilmer opened the case for this Society, Mr. Bartlett following. The opposing Society was represented by Mr. Asa Bird Gardiner. . oe Mr. Wilmer gave the history of the Society, claimed priority of organization and incorporation, or, as it was called, “ right of way,” gracefully premising, that 1t was extremely pleasant to come to a controversy where the issues are pretty sharply marked, and where the controversialists were certainly equally marked for the kindly and courteous feeling which they enter- tain towards each other, and which they desire that those who undertake to represent them should observe in the representation of this case. Mr. Bartlett, in taking up the legal points for this Soctety said: “ Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: This, I believe, is the second occasion, in a somewhat long career at the Bar, upon which I have had the honour to appear solely for the good of a cause, without being influenced by any compensation, paid or agreed to be paid; the other was a case of Court martial, where I succeeded, after thirty days’ trial, in exonerating the officer. As your Committee is aware, a member of either House cannot appear in any case before a Bureau, Department or Com- mittee of Congress, except as voluntary Counsel, so | think I come before you to-day in a semi-judicial way, and | may con- sider myself in my statements, to a certain extent, amicus curie, and I shall probably not regard the case from the extreme stand- point of the advocate, to which my distinguished friend, Colonel Gardiner, is always accustomed.” Colonel Bartlett cited many decisions rendered by various Courts against the assumption of titles and trademarks, and per- haps the most important was the opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley, of the Supreme Court of the United States, as follows: “ The identity of names seldom arises, that is too monstrous a proposi- tion to be considered, that is, that a company would infringe the very name of a company, but it is the similarity in names which must be checked by a Court of Equity.” (See Calendar Nos. 1702 and 1703, 54th Congress, Second Session, Report No. 1552.) Mr. Asa Bird Gardiner contended that the original Society of Colonial Dames was founded and named by Mrs. Martha J. Lamb. This assumption was clearly shown to be without foun- dation, by reference to the Journal of the Society and by the overwhelming testimony of Mrs. J. Lyon Gardiner, it being shown that she herself, with Mrs. John King Van Rensselaer, were the founders of this Society. (See Calendar, Nos. 1702- 1703, Senate, 54th Congress, Second Session.) : The decision arrived at by the Committee of Congress reads THUS ¢ Mi tM Ma ie, (So Ma te as “In view of the fact that the aims and purposes of the “two organizations are apparently almost identically the ti MO Ze ZOO WN WOU ; MSS Se NS an SSN -.32EE AANA AN SES9 “same, your Committee do not deem it advisable to recom- “mend any action which would destroy the usefulness of “either of them. In reaching this conclusion your Commit- ~ tee entertain the hope that the differences existing between “these patriotic organizations may be adjusted outside the “ Congress of the United States, so that the mere question " of granting a national charter shall not be confused by a “ controversy over the claim of one organization that it has “certain rights which the other organization does not pos- “sess and is not entitled to. In this particular case the “ determination of the question of priority of rights would “ seem to belong to the Courts, and not to Congress. Under “all the circumstances, your Committee report adversely upon both Bills; S$ 2087 and S, 2356,” _ It will thus be seen that the piratical Society did not gain its point in obtaining a National Charter in the name of the original Society. It was their interference, however, that barred the orig- inal Society from obtaining its charter from the Congress of the United States. The triumph of the moment rested with the orig- inal Society, as the movement then was, to prevent the bills of the Opposition Society from passage. That movement was success- ful; the decision of the Committee, however, barred the original Society from its Bill, which had preceded all the others in the 52nd Congress, and which the later Bills, which followed, embodied. TO: THE COURTS: So our Counsel took the case to the Courts in New York, where it was tried before Judge Bookstaver. It was with the greatest regret that this Society was obliged to vindicate itself in this way, arousing a certain amount of resentment and oblig- ing it to submit to attacks from the Press. Judge Bookstaver’s decision will be found in the Appendix, and it will be seen that he argued that as we were purely unselfish, and a patriotic set of women, and not engaged in business, relief could not be had. Reference to this opinion, which is given in full in the Appendix, and comparison with the facts which came out on the trial, the chief points of which are given above, will show how flimsy and unjust such a decision will ever be held by those who take the trouble to look into the matter; that of laches or delay being the only point worthy of serious consideration, and which from a legal view of the case might have weight, though it is thought, in equity, none. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court had recently decided in a like case—that of the Society of the War of 1812— that it made no difference at all whether the Societies were non- ® ae . WN SNORT . NS UO TNS SS RAR AAA co ~ 5 Cane Me AUR OOTE EET HLA ORY ER ODE A OOH YON AEOUATT YHA PEO OT ICED PN SE La OEE PEP OL LIE PE, ee Si LOLS OO LEA LIL LR S AIA A yy ser td iy a eee SRW~ %) mI Yilidsdds edie bli ill 10 commercial or not, an injunction should lie where the name of one Society is unlawfully appropriated by another. In view of this it was that an appeal was taken. In the foregoing it 1s shown that earnest remonstrances in Philadelphia were made against the assumption of this title, and sworn testimony shown in the hearing before the Committee of the Library in Washing- ton to that effect. But in spite of this, and its recent decision in the case of the Society of the War of 1812, on appeal, Judge Bookstaver’s opinion was upheld, we believe to the astonishment of all concerned, and the only justification given has been that this last Court of Appeal in this State is not allowed revision of testimony and evidence. The case was, however, ably and ex- haustively submitted by the Appellate Counsel, Col. Franklin Bartlett. (See Brief for Appellant, Office, Colonial Dames of America. ) That the women of this Society hesitated for some time to bring this matter into Court and appear against friends, cost them dear, for it gave the argument of laches, or long delay. Our learned Counsel met this argument by saying that: “the whole case of the defendants is one of avoidance or evasion, purely technical in character, and which cannot appeal for a mement to any sense of equity or fair play _.. .. it is virtually saying to the plaintiff ‘ You are right in your contention, you invented or coined the name in dispute, you first adopted and first used the words ‘“ Colonial Dames” and we have taken the name from you. We have appropriated your name and have in- fringed your common-law right, we have taken that which did not belong to us, and we have aggravated the wrong done to you by making it as wide-spread as possible; but for all this injury, for all these wrongs, there is no remedy and you can have no re- dress, because you have waited, because you have failed to bring an action against us at an earlier date, and so you have lost every I right by laches or delay.’ ” In giving these details as shortly as seemed possible to any clear understanding of the matter, it is done because our Dames know little of the case, and should be supplied with reasons for what they stand for, not at all in any spirit of wishing to arouse irritation or unkindliness, but the management of the Society was in the hands of women who felt their responsibility, and their action, backed by the whole Society, deserves a faithful chronicle for those who come after. _, The women of this Society have many friends in the oppo- sition Society, and they are quite convinced that this history has been unknown to them, and that many of them are quite in- nocent of this wrong done in the past, the effect of which is still felt. We mutually have a respect for the object of the two Societies, and desire success in all patriotic movements. NY \ RN YY: Ls We Ml Ge Lee, tillile Gil (LLL A ; VILL ee uy \. NNN STOR AK de & 3 ry Ns Nh Bs SSHa BADGE. BOOKPLATE—CERTIFICATE—PIN, Our gold badge, with bars, clasp and ribbon, was adopted after much debate. The original design of the Colonial lady, with fan, was sketched by Mr. Whitehouse, in his studio at Tif- fany’s. Mr. Seward suggested the Latin motto. The badge ribbon of The Colonial Dames of America is intended to be a pale blue, and as much like the colors of the Society of the Cincinnati as possible. The ribbon is manufactured in France for Tiffany & Co. expressly for our Dames. The silver-gilt badges are precisely the same as the gold, in form and design. Mr. E. D. French designed our Bookplate in 1893, and it was first used in the limited edition of a year-book, prepared by Mrs. Rutherfurd and Mrs. Van Rensselaer in that year. The Board decided to have a Certificate of Membership, and a Committee was formed, Mrs. Thomas Wren Ward, Chair- man, who invited several artists to compete for the design. That of Mr. Langdon Schroeder was accepted, after submission to the General Society. It proved very difficult to obtain the Coats- of-Arms of the original Colonies; the present Certificate is fault- less and very beautiful. The Seal was designed by Mrs. John A, Vanderpoel, to whom the Society is much indebted for her taste and artistic skill. Many of our Dames have obtained the Certifi- cates and had them framed. The blue enamel Pin was designed by Miss Borrowe, and approved by the Society in 1903. It is obligatory to have either the gold or silver-gilt badge, or the star pin, it is not necessary to have a certificate of mem- bership. The evidence that our Badge and Seal were universally ad- mired is found in their being so closely imitated by other Colonial Dames, who, apparently thinking that our title, badge and seal are perfection, did not take the trouble to originate any other title or badge for their own use. COMMITTEES. The Library Committee was organized in February, 1897. In 1898 the Manuscript Committee united with the Library Com- mittee. The following ladies have served, or do now serve on these Committees: Miss Morse, Chairman; Mrs. J. Vinton Dahl- gren, Mrs. J. S. Hotchkiss, Mrs. Weisse, Mrs. Macdonald, Mrs. John G. Floyd, Mrs. Rufus Delafield, Miss Scharfenberg, Miss Ward, Miss Robinson, Miss Delafield. The Art ‘Committee, formed :at te) same time by Mrs. Gerard, now holds its business meetings with the Library and : : 5 SSL aa : SRS