The Constitution grants Congress the power, among others, of promoting science and useful arts "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." These words were singled out in the Constitution because they represent ideas, and they represented in the minds of the framers of the Constitution the supremacy of ideas in the national life.

It must be borne in mind, however, that there is a difference between patents and copyrights. A patent secures a man rights in an idea. A copyright secures no such rights. It secures only the right of the expression of the idea. If I write a book today on a definite subject, anybody can tomorrow write another book on the same subject, so long as he does not use my words.

I have always admired and been proud as a literary man of the record that has been made in this country on this subject. I think it would be a very ill day for America when people did not stand for their own rights, and I have great sympathy with the Confederate soldier about whom a story is told. After the Battle of Bull Run, as those who had participated were sitting about the bivouac talking things over, someone said to this soldier, "Why did you'ns come up here to fight we'uns, all the way from Texas?" He replied, "Well, I hear'n tell that there is some o'my rights I h'aint got, and ef there is any of my rights I h'aint got, I want 'em." [Laughter.]

That is good American doctrine, and so long as we all feel that way about our rights, I do not think there is much danger in the working of democracy.

Let us briefly review the demand which has always existed for this principle of pure and simple copyright. It began in this country with Noah Webster, back in 1815, or somewhere near there, and in 1820 the first copyright bill was reported favorably in Congress by Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. There was at that time no public opinion back of it. There was very little interest in literature, and the thing went by default.

Along about the 50's, with intermittent attempts to do something, it was taken up much more seriously, and in 1883 the American Copyright League, representing the authors of America, was organized. It included virtually every author of the United States, and they all went on record for a pure and simple copyright, which we have never had.

We thought we abolished literary piracy in 1891. Measurably, we did, but we have not abolished literary piracy in the law, because we now put upon our English friends, our English cousins, persons with whom we have in our literature and law the deepest sympathy, an onerous burden, which they have borne for 40 years, and it is the price they are paying for our false reputation of having abolished literary piracy.

In the meantime, what have they been doing for us? It is by the backdoor of England that we have been able to get into the Berne Conference, and the English have enabled us to do so and get all its benefits. I submit that on the mere question of ordinary fairness, this deserves special consideration from us.

They have been very patient, but there are signs of great restiveness in England, and properly so. I fancy that if 10 years ago any member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives had been

asked whether England was about to desert its former policy of free trade, and establish a protective system, he would have hooted at the idea, but this has come about, and it may be that England, with heretofore splendid respect for literary property and a willingness to extend it to everybody within its gates, will find that the pressure upon it is too great to resist, and it may be obliged to retaliate upon us with a similar clause, manufacture and nonimportation clause, which would throw the fat into the fire, and which would establish a situation which would be regrettable for all American interests, as well as for our sense of international justice.

Think of the men who have stood for this principle: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry W. Longfellow, John G. Whittier, George Bancroft, James Russell Lowell, all men who stood on the moral issue. They were not thinking about cheap books. We have had cheaper books since the international copyright bill was passed than we ever had before. They stood for right.

People said, "Oh, let us leave out the moral issue. Let us not urge the moral issue." That was in 1890 and 1891. But we felt otherwise. We believed that the country was ethical and would approach the subject from that point of view, and we won on the moral issue.

James Russell Lowell before a committee of the House of Representatives said:

In vain we call old notions fudge,

And bend our conscience to our dealing;
The Ten Commandments will not budge,
And stealing will continue stealing.

Mark Twain was another stalwart supporter of our contentions. When he came down to Washington to lobby for the bill in the House of Representatives, he was received with great eclat. People crowded about him, and he made a fine argument, and stuck strictly to the business of trying to get the new copyright bill passed. For instance, he said, as one man came up, "Oh, here comes Ficklebaum", some other name like Ficklebaum. 'Now, Ficklebaum is going to vote for the copyright bill. He never stole any chickens at least, he was never caught at it." [Laughter.]

or

In that way he held clearly and firmly to the idea that this is a moral issue; and it remains a moral issue.

What I wish to impress upon the committee is that although we have the reputation of having abolished literary piracy, we have not done so, and this is an opportunity to do so with the least trouble, and at no expense.

The copyright principle has also had the support of various Presidents of the United States. The bill was signed by President Harrison with great delight. I was present at the time. It was desired very much by President Cleveland-in his first administrationthat it should be passed during his administration, and he was extremely sorry that it was not. It had the sympathy of President Taft, of course of President Theodore Roosevelt, and of President Woodrow Wilson, the two latter being authors.

I feel that it is almost wasting time for me to add more to the list of the distinguished persons in the United States who have supported the principle.

Mr. Chairman, I have to present to the committee a resolution from the American Academy of Arts and Letters. This institution stands in the United States in the same relation to letters and the arts that the French Academy does in France. In fact, a member of the French Academy spoke of the American Academy of Arts and Letters as the younger sister of the French Academy, and we have been in very close relations with it, as well as with the other academies of the world.

The American Academy at its annual meeting held on the 9th of November last, this measure having been carefully explained to them, and the bill itself having been placed before the directors, unanimously declared in favor of the measure, and appointed me, as secretary, to urge the matter upon Congress. I will not read the resolution, but submit it.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be placed in the record. (The resolution is as follows:)

THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND LETTERS,

New York, N.Y.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, held in New York, on the 9th of November 1933, attention was called by the secretary of the academy to the pending bill of Mr. Cutting designed to admit the United States into the Berne Copyright Union. A copy of this bill had been sent to each member of the board of directors, and its provisions were summarized by the secretary, whereupon the academy unanimously voted its approval of the measure and authorized and directed the secretary to present its action to the President and to Congress, and to represent the academy in advocacy of the measure. ROBERT UNDERWOOD JOHNSON,

Secretary.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, present at the meeting where this resolution was adopted were three prominent publicists of this country-Elihu Root, a man of sober judgment; Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, a very outspoken person on what he believes to be right, and Governor Wilbur F. Cross. So that the public sentiment of the present time does not lag behind that of the last generation.

Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat familiar with the public sentiment, as it has been 50 years since I first took up the work of assisting in this great reform.

I also present a similar resolution in favor of the bill from the Indiana Club of New York, and I think it has significance from the fact that Indiana, where I spent my boyhood, has been particularly active in support of the principle of pure and simple copyright. Not only did President Harrison sign the bill but Dr. Edward Eggleston, the author of "The Hoosier Schoolmaster", spent many months in Washington laying the foundation for our future success. Mr. Vestal, who introduced the bill, as you know, which passed the House of Representatives and failed in the Senate, was an Indiana man. Every Indiana author endorsed the bill. It would be very difficult, if you threw a ball into a company of intelligent persons in America, not to have it rebound three or four times from the heads of Indiana authors. Indiana is a State which bas produced a great deal of good literature. Therefore I honor the Indiana Club of New York.

The CHAIRMAN. The resolution will be received and printed in the record.

(The resolution is as follows:)

INDIANA CLUB IN NEW YORK,
New Rochelle, N.Y.

Resolved, That the Indiana Club in New York, in regular session assembled, approve the measure known as the "Cutting bill," which pertains to an international copyright protection for authors through the Berne Copyright Union of which the United States has been invited to become a member.

That the Indiana Club give this measure our active support, and

That we delegate Robert Underwood Johnson, an honorary member of this club, to act for us in promoting its passage.

MARY HUSTON (Mrs. CHARLES E.) GREGORY,

President.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, one other point. In the Council of the American Copyright League, in the campaign of 1890 and 1891, were 37 members. Of those only 9 are now living. I have written to each one of these, sending a précis of the Cutting bill, and every one of the 8 has cordially, in fact, enthusiastically, endorsed the measure. Why not, since the old Copyright League itself entered the campaign first of all upon that high plane?

I want to call attention to one other feature of this matter. The interests for whom the conditional clauses were placed in the bill, the manufacturing clause, the clause compelling manufacturing in this country as the condition of copyright for Englishmen, and the nonimportation clause, which seems a logical deduction-the persons. for whom these clauses were proposed are on record as having said, at the time of the consideration of the Vestal bill, that they would not oppose a measure on that account which enabled us to get into the Berne International Union. This it does in the simplest way, and in such a way that it would be an extraordinary advantage to our people. Another point is that this bill not only does not injure anybody, but it does not prevent the fullest revision from time to time of the entire domestic copyright law, so that nobody who has any particular interest in copyright-I am speaking of the secondary interests; you protected the primary interests, the producer of copyright property, and you protect, of course, the men who have secondary rights, but there is a great deal of conflict between persons who have secondary rights, and if we waited until all these conflicting interests were reconciled before accepting a simple, short measure, which would at once take us into the Berne Copyright Union, we should never get there at all, should lose our opportunity, and I do not hestitate to say that it would bring upon us the obloquy of the civilized world, and justly.

Before the passage of the International Copyright Act of 1891, one could plead that it was in ignorance we did it, that there was no public sentiment against reprinting foreign books without payment; but that argument cannot be used now. We now are intelligently facing a definite situation, and I want that my country, of which I am proud, and which I have tried to serve in any way I could, should have the best morals there are. "The best are none too good for us."

When we speak of morality, I hope that will not be lost sight of as the basis of this treaty and the basis of the bill. When somebody spoke to him of "mere morality," Channing said that was like saying "Poor God, with nobody to help Him."

I hope this measure will be taken up, and that it will be taken up promptly, before we give further occasion for English authors to be placed in opposition to us, for then it would seem as though they were exacting it of us. Let us do it generously and nobly, and in that way we shall add to the righteousness which exalteth a nation.

(Mr. Johnson adds to the foregoing statement his conviction that the important procedure will be to ratify the treaty as it stands, and to postpone any possible amendment of the bill until the treaty has been proclaimed.)

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Johnson. Now we will hear Mr. Solberg.

Mr. SOLBERG. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I ought to yield to the representative from the Department of State, as you are dealing with a convention. Then I will follow him.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; we will hear from the representative of the Department of State.

STATEMENT OF WALLACE MCCLURE, ASSISTANT TO ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRANCIS B. SAYRE, STATE DEPARTMENT

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: I am very glad that Ambassador Johnson has presented this case to you from the point of view of the higher ideals and the morality connected with it. Needless to say, I think that is the most important aspect.

My own function, however, is quite different. I come to you from the Department of State to present to you the particular reasons why the Department seeks the ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, as revised at Rome in 1928, commonly known as the Copyright Convention. The Department is actuated, in the first instance, by the fact that this is a matter of the promotion of American economic interests in other countries. You know that the Department of State exists largely for the purpose of promoting such interests.

We believe that this treaty is important in carrying out a part of this purpose. You know that we are at the present time engaged in a special effort to promote trade with other countries, trade in all sorts of things. You know that the reason for that is largely because of the great change which has come over our economic life during the last generation.

In the nineteenth century we were not greatly interested in promoting trade abroad, because we sold chiefly raw materials which other countries had to have. In the last generation we have commenced to manufacture a great many things which are less easy to sell, and require treaties with other countries in order that the markets may be preserved.

I have just come from the office of the Finance Committee, where I was trying to present a proposition connected with our international trade relations. I am from the section of the Department of State which deals primarily with the promotion of international trade, and I want to present this matter from that point of view.

Just as the manufacture of products which enter into the trade of the world has grown and multiplied in this country during the last generation, so the production of literary and artistic products which enter into the trade of the world has grown and multiplied, over the same term of years. In the nineteenth century, when our copyright laws were in process of formation, were growing up, we were not particularly interested in selling goods of this sort abroad. Now we

are.

This development has been largely due to one of the causes