CR 
 167 
 U6W6
 
 PROPOSED TH ON COATS OF
 
 UCSB LIBRARY 
 
 REASONS 
 
 EEGULATION OP THE USE OF COAT-ARMOR 
 
 IN THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 A PLAN FOR TAXING THE EMPLOYMENT OF SUCH 
 INSIGNIA. 
 
 BY W. H. WHITMORE. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 DAVID CLAPP & SON, PRINTERS 334 WASHINGTON STREET. 
 
 1868. 
 
 P *
 
 THE PROPOSED TAX ON COATS OF ARMS. 
 
 THE proposal of Hon. John W. Chanler in the House of Representa- 
 tives, to levy a tax upon armorial bearings, has brought the subject of 
 their use to a practical consideration. If the United States can derive 
 any considerable revenue from this source, it is a matter worthy the 
 serious consideration of the Committee on Ways and Means, to which 
 the resolution was referred. If it be possible at the same time to 
 remove from the national character a reproach to which it has been 
 hitherto liable, the opportunity ought not to be neglected. 
 
 It would seem possible to accomplish both these results in a very 
 brief time and at the expense of very little official machinery ; and 
 we will attempt to point out one way, not claiming, of course, that 
 it is the only mode. 
 
 A simple enactment, that any one who uses a coat-of-arms shall 
 pay an annual tax therefor, if couched in the same terms as that im- 
 posing the tax on carriages, yachts, watches and a few other specified 
 luxuries, seems defective, inasmuch as these are well-known articles 
 of merchandize. The use of armorial bearings approaches in its na- 
 ture more closely to the employment of a profession or business, A 
 man might obtain a license empowering him for one year to use such 
 coat-armor as he pleased, in the same way that he now receives per- 
 mission to pursue his ordinary business as a merchant or in any pro- 
 fession. Yet the law will not grant a license to carry on any business 
 which in the opinion of Congress is injurious to the interests of the 
 people. It may be added that such a license seems to be a recogni- 
 tion by Congress that the business or profession is one worthy of its 
 protection. In the list of trades or occupations which now require a 
 license are a few which many people hold to be morally wrong, yet
 
 it is not disputed that the majority of Congress holds a different view, 
 and the licensees are protected in their respective employments. 
 Some object to the manufacture of spirituous liquors, others to the 
 managing of theatres, to vending lottery tickets, or to dealing in 
 tobacco ; yet the fact that these avocations are licensed removes them 
 from the class of illegal or prohibited pursuits. 
 
 It would also be clearly unjust for the government to extort a tax 
 even from the vanity of willing dupes, if it gave no fair equivalent 
 therefor. As titles of nobility are prohibited in the United States, no 
 tax can be levied upon the possessors of them ; and it would be unfair 
 and absurd to propose a tax on these purely fictitious titles which 
 various societies 'confer on their members. Not to cite titles open to 
 verbal criticism, the Free Masons bestow the title of Knight upon 
 certain of their fraternity, and there can be no question that such is 
 the name of a recognized order of nobility. In that it lacks the offi- 
 cial recognition of government, however, this honor is defective in 
 its essential point. Every man knows that a Knight is such only so 
 far and so long as his associates choose to give him the name. It 
 would be harsh and unjust, however, for government to single out 
 such nominal Knights, and make them pay for their fictitious titles or 
 abandon their social organization. 
 
 The use of coat-armor, however, is not prohibited by the Consti- 
 tution, and yet, from some unwritten prohibition, it has never been 
 officially allowed. Why should a man be obliged to pay an annual 
 tax for the use of a certain device or combination of figures arranged 
 in a certain way, rather than for the use of a monogram or a non- 
 heraldic device ? The answer is, of course, that in nearly all the 
 civilized countries of Europe these few marks and combinations have 
 a certain meaning and value, and that every government which recog- 
 nizes their use is bound to assent to the general agreement as to their 
 meaning. 
 
 We laugh at Soulouque and his sable peerage, his Dukes of Mar- 
 malade and Marquises of Lemonade, because we acknowledge a stand- 
 ard in the peerage of Great Britain, France or Prussia. Is it not pos- 
 sible that our foreign friends will laugh at a government which gives 
 John Smith a license to display the coat-armor of the Duke of Nor- 
 folk, the Earl of Derby, of Prince Metternich or Count Bismarck ?
 
 Can any one deny that the government which collects a tax from the 
 impostor has assumed the greater portion of the disgrace ? 
 
 At this point indeed it might well be said that the wisest course for 
 Congress to adopt would be to ignore the subject ; and whatever sum 
 of money might be thus collected, to refuse to entertain the subject 
 in any way. Ifc is not clear, however, that there is no alternative ; and 
 if this use of coat-armor be a privilege for which the public will 
 cheerfully pay, we cannot afford to neglect this source of revenue. 
 
 One thing is evident ; every where in our cities the assumption of 
 coat-armor is daily growing more frequent. We can no more avoid 
 the imputation of being delinquents in this respect, than we can repel 
 the criticisms formerly justly made on our national peculiarities. It 
 is useless for our government to treat the matter as beneath its notice, 
 for the subject of the costumes of its representatives abroad has been 
 acted upon by Congress. It is certainly the wisest plan for our 
 government to take, to prohibit the use or to insist upon proper 
 regulations. Either method is sensible and easy, though we confess a 
 preference for the latter course. 
 
 There seems indeed to be one sensible and dignified course of 
 action which Congress can adopt, to which no exception can be taken 
 abroad, and which involves no additional machinery for the collection 
 of the tax. This is to put the use of armorial insignia on the same 
 basis as trade-marks or copyrights. Let it be enacted briefly that as 
 the use of certain devices is common in civilized countries to denote 
 certain facts, and such use is restricted by certain well-known rules, 
 this government prohibits the use of armorial devices except on the 
 following conditions. First, that by the payment of an annual license 
 fee of ten dollars, any one may be entitled to use such armorial bear- 
 ings as he may have registered at the United States District Court 
 in the district in which he is taxed ; and that any one making use of 
 any such insignia on any article without license, shall pay a fine of 
 five hundred dollars, except where such insignia had been engraved or 
 painted on some article of the nature of a monument or heirloom and 
 no personal use was made of the same. 
 
 Secondly, that every one intending to obtain such a license should 
 file in the District Court a statement of the armorial insignia he wishes 
 to adopt, and should pay therefor the sum of Fifty dollars. In case he
 
 6 
 
 wished to show that such armorial arms were his by inheritance, the 
 proofs should be cited in his statement, and verified by the oath of the 
 applicant, and such statements should always be accessible to the 
 public for inspection and publication. 
 
 Thirdly, that every coat-of-arms thus licensed should be the exclu- 
 sive property of the applicant and his descendants, according to the 
 rules of English heraldry, and any infringment on his exclusive right 
 should be properly punished. 
 
 Fourthly, that every such coat-of-arms used under the license should 
 have an indispensable portion of it, the date of the year in which the 
 application was filed, or the date at which, as the applicant claimed, 
 it was used by some paternal ancestor. The use of a false date in the 
 claim should be punished by a heavy fine. 
 
 In this way the government would simply take the position, that 
 admitting the feeling which would prompt a family to possess some 
 peculiar insignia for its exclusive use, it would agree to defend the 
 owner in his property, only insisting that the truth was told as to the 
 mode of acquiring it. 
 
 Every one who has studied the science of heraldry will agree that 
 this proviso of the date is perfectly in accordance with the rules, and 
 entirely feasible. The figures may be placed on a scroll beneath or 
 beside the shield, or on any suitable portion of the field ; the only 
 indispensable requisite should be that they were plainly set forth. 
 
 In fact this system would be entirely in accordance with our politi- 
 cal institutions. Certainly \ve do not desire to prevent any man from 
 distinguishing himself, nor his children from cherishing a proper pride 
 in his acts. Moreover any system which will tend to strengthen the 
 family tie among kindred, widely scattered as families will become 
 throughout this immense country, must be a bond of union and an aid 
 in preserving an identity of interest. 
 
 To induce persons to adopt this system and thus to make it a source 
 of revenue, we have provided that any man may take his earliest date 
 at which it can be proved any of his paternal ancestors used coat-of- 
 armor. The fact of the use will remain any way, and by registering 
 it and recognizing it, we offer a sufficient inducement perhaps to have 
 the fashion established. 
 
 At all events the point will be simple. If any man has a coat-of-
 
 arms painted on the panels of his coach, let him be told at once that 
 he may continue to use it, but the government insists that he shall 
 also add the date of the acquisition of the property. If he be honest 
 in his assertion that he values it only as an ornament or as a personal 
 device, he will agree to let the date of 1868 stand as a part of it. If 
 it be an heirloom., he will be glad to put the earlier date which will 
 show the fact, and it can injure no one to have it known. The only 
 malcontent will be the man who has hoped that in the lack of all 
 rules and authority, his assumed coat has been believed to be an 
 inheritance. 
 
 Lastly, we would propose that any officer of the army or navy who 
 has been promoted for special gallantry in the field or for great ability 
 in the discharge of his duties, shall have the right to substitute for the 
 date, the name of the battle in which he won his promotion, and shall 
 not be obliged to pay the registration fee. We should doubtless in 
 this way meet the want which has been so strongly felt, of some 
 mode by which a meritorious officer could be rewarded. Crosses, 
 ribands, medals and other decorations have been but seldom employed 
 by our government, but here the use of such a reward may be easily 
 made a part of an important system. 
 
 The whole plan, in fact, would allow of those gradations which 
 would meet the requirements of every class. Government would 
 have the merit on the one hand of suppressing that ridiculous aping of 
 foreign heraldry now prevalent, and would substitute a mode simple 
 and republican. To the man of wealth it would offer an inheritance 
 for his children, founded on a truth ; to the man conscious of a dis- 
 tinguished ancestry, a recognition of the fact ; and to the man who 
 had risked his life for his country, an acknowledgment of his ser- 
 vices, the more to be prized since it could always be borne without 
 ostentation. 
 
 If all these inducements should fail to render the use of coat-armor 
 popular, then surely it is time to prohibit it entirely. As it stands it 
 is but a mockery, and nothing but the breath of authority can give it 
 life. If it be declined after being profiered on such honest and intel- 
 ligible grounds as those we have named, let us have no more of it, 
 and let the law destroy it. 
 
 We incline, however, to the belief that it would prove a financial
 
 8 
 
 success, since it is well known that these insignia are of prime im- 
 portance in many forms of decoration. Let us have an honest and 
 manly system of American heraldry, and we do not fear that the num- 
 ber of applicants will be too insignificant. 
 
 NOTE. Memorandum of the plan herein proposed : 
 
 1. The use of coat-armor shall be prohibited to all but those who 
 pay an annual tax. 
 
 2. The description of the arms shall be filed in the District Court, 
 and a fee of at least fifty dollars paid therefor ; the record being 
 always open for inspection. Officers now or formerly in the military 
 or naval service of the United States to be allowed to record their arms 
 without paying such fee ; and in the case of an officer deceased, his 
 children should be allowed the privilege of 'entering arms in their 
 father's name. 
 
 3. The date of entry at the Court is in all cases to decide the own- 
 ership, if two persons have entered the same arms, unless one party 
 prove inheritance, in which case he shall have the exclusive right. 
 In all cases the person dispossessed may amend his first description, 
 and thus obtain a new coat-of-arms without further charge. 
 
 4. The date of the year when the arms were assumed, to be a 
 necessary part of them, except that the date of an inherited shield 
 may be used instead ; or by an officer of the United States, the name 
 of any battle, &c. 
 
 5. These provisions to apply only to personal use, and not to refer 
 to existing monuments or records. 
 
 6. After the record at the Court, the right shall remain although 
 no use is made. The tax is to be only for such years as personal use 
 is intended. 
 
 7. In all cases where persons have paintings of arms, or engraved 
 plate or seals, they must take out a license annually, though they 
 need not file a description nor alter the existing shields by adding the 
 date.
 
 o? 
 
 lfo-7 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482
 
 NEWARK, NJ. WIlllAMSC ORT, PA. 
 LOS ANOatS, CALIF. 
 UULHTFORO, OHT.
 
 -