Harold PUTNAM

PUTNAM, Harold, K.C., B.A., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Colchester (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
November 19, 1868
Deceased Date
November 13, 1945
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Putnam
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=193a7c5f-b913-4edc-bb03-ab86ddff8d3a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
LIB
  Colchester (Nova Scotia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 65)


June 12, 1925

Mr. PUTNAM:

Alluding to the remarks

of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), I think he seems to assume that the proposed barrier against the word "royal" corresponds with the line at which the word is allowed or disallowed upon application at present. That is a fallacy, because in hundreds of cases people now of their own volition are assuming to use the word "royal" on all sorts of advertising devices and in connection with little partnerships and companies whether properly incorporated or not. Therefore, the remedy which he would assume as at present in the hands of the authorities is not there.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1925

Mr. PUTNAM:

As a general supporter of this government I hope he is right. He boldly asserts that the prohibition of the indiscriminate use of the word "royal" tends to disrespect for the Royal family. It is odd that public opinion in England, where they are measurably loyal to the Royal family, has taken the opposite view, and the use of the word is forbidden except in very rare and very conservative instances. In addition to what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, it does seem to me that part of the policy of this prohibition is to prevent an unfair advantage as between advertisers, because the use of the word "royal" connotes a possible degree of governmental favour towards the advertiser employing the term. Right in my own town, as solicitor, I was engaged in the incorporation of a garage company that had theretofore called itself The Royal Garage Company, but the provincial authorities of Nova Scotia pointed out that

it was against the policy of the governments both there and at Ottawa to grant incorporation of any joint stock company under this distinctive word. For my part, I can see a dual reason for this stand, and I am surprised at what I must characterize, with all respect, as the tangent at which the hon. member for Mackenzie has allowed his mind to travel.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1925

Mr. PUTNAM:

At the present time

there is no penalty at all in scores of cases for the indiscriminate use of the word "royal" where it is being used without even an application for it. I know cases of it right in my province where they use the term "royal" this and "royal" that. While at present a company will not be permitted to incorporate under that name, there is, so far as I know, no law under the firmament to prevent those people in that informal way from using the word "royal." In any case there is no harm in making the law clear upon the point. I do not think the word "imperial" in Canada stands in quite the same position as the word "royal." The word "royal" is far

Criminal Code

more definite to us than the word "imperial." To say that you are going to sell imperial oil or imperial oats does not infringe, to my mind at least, nearly so closely upon what is denoted by the Royal family itself as the use of the word "royal." The hon. member cited the use of the words "king" and "queen." You may talk about the Queen Shoe Company or the King Tractor Company, and it is obvious on its face that those terms are too ambitious to carry the idea of any governmental favour. But when you use the word "royal," it seems to me that you are allowing that man an unfair advertising advantage, because when you come down through all the grades of intelligence, you will find some and not a few who will actually think that when a man has the right to use the word "royal" in connection with his business, he is a little nearer the throne in some business sense in governmental favour than his competitors. We had a debate which bordered on that by way of analogy when we incorporated the United Church of Canada. Objection was taken to that inasmuch as the newly named church seemed to have under that very term some of the rights of a state church. The objection did not prevail, but at the same time I was not entirely clear that there was not some validity in the objection. I have always held that it has been part of the policy as regards the use of the word "royal" in an advertising sense that it conveys an undue advertising advantage. It is too happy an advertising term.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1925

Mr. PUTNAM:

My hon. friend from

Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) asserted that this was the most foolish legislation of the last four sessions.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1925

Mr. PUTNAM:

I think if the hon. gentleman would give reasons rather than conclusions he would be employing his time better.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink