Also, there is a telegram from Mr. Bartlett Cormack, with reference to the same matter and, if there is no objection, the telegram will be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The telegram above refererd to is as follows:)

CHAIRMAN, PATENTS COMMITTEE,

House of Representatives.

APRIL 1, 1936.

Writers here including myself have jointly objected to biographical experiences being given your committee in place of factual testimony during your hearings on the proposed copyright bill and to having such personal opinions regarded as representative. But our disapproval and repudiation of such bypath droppings, which was telegraphed to you with a sincere desire to assist your committee's judgment as well as to give ourselves fair play, should not be construed as approval of the Duffy bill which, particularly in its moralrights clause, is dictatorial about and repressive to the free play of minds, the free functioning of which has always been accepted as a peculiarly American right and the one that, incorporated in our Constitution as the first article of its Bill of Rights, has made our country and its people proud and great and envied by peoples who are by law made afraid to think. People do not derive either entertainment nor ideas from vacuums, and the attitudes of the men and women who write the entertainments and ideas of the people should in common fairness as well as because of their right to expression under the law be considered in your committee's consideration of this Duffy bill. The working writers of the country which is your country as well as ours, remember, are against the Duffy bill. What would you think of a law to regulate working farmers written by an author of moving pictures (big question mark). This telegram by the way is a personal expression, sent not by any organization but simply by myself.

BARTLETT CORMACK.

This morning we have with us representatives of the American Library Association, Mr. Cannon and Mr. Solberg; also, during a part of the morning, we will probably hear Miss Bendelari with reference to design copyright.

We will now be glad to hear from the representatives of the American Library Association. As you testify, please state your names, official connections, and places of residence distinctly.

STATEMENT OF CARL L. CANNON, YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Mr. CANNON. My name is Carl L. Cannon, Yale University Library. I am a member of the Federal relations committee of the American Library Association, and was former chairman of the book-buying committee and, in that capacity, I represented the American Library Association at the copyright hearings here over a period of several years. Mr. Milton Ferguson, the present chairman of the committee, telephoned the other day saying he could not come down from Brooklyn and asked me to take his place.

The position of the American Library Association has always been the same on copyright bills, that is, we have nothing to ask for. The importation privilege which was extended in the legislation a good many years ago we are interested in, because that gives us the right to import, duty free, from abroad, chiefly from England, of course, books which we need for the information of our public, and we would like to retain that privilege and I think it is retained in the present Duffy bill.

We have also favored the entrance of the United States into the International Copyright Union. We believe that is a civilized act and it is mutually beneficial; that it encourages friendly and cordial

relations between the various governments and we have regretted with considerable concern the fact that the United States has remained out of the International Copyright Union so long. We think its entrance would facilitate friendly relations, which we are anxious to preserve, with foreign libraries, foreign publishers, and foreign universities. The present relations of the United States with practically all of those learned societies and libraries are very friendly and we would like to keep them so.

Further than that, I may say we have no particular or direct interest in the bill, but just on those two points-the importation privilege, as at present, and that we are strongly in favor of entrance into the International Copyright Union.

Mr. LANHAM. Are there others to testify besides you, Mr. Cannon? Mr. CANNON. I think not.

Mr. LANHAM. Normally we proceed without questioning witnesses until 11:30; but, in order not to keep you all the morning, may I ask you just a question or two?

Mr. CANNON. Certainly.

Mr. LANHAM. Under the present copyright law, do you have for libraries proper importation provisions?

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you recall and are you familiar with the provision that was in the Vestal bill, which also provided for entrance of the United States in the Berne Convention and had reference to the importation of books from abroad?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; I was present at that hearing.

Mr. LANHAM. For the information of the committee, would the provision that was in the Vestal bill also give you this right of importation?

Mr. CANNON. I said I was familiar with it. I would not want to take a snap judgment on that without hearing the language reread. So far as I recall, we favored the Vestal measure and I think the importation privileges were agreeable. But do you have the language of that bill?

Mr. LANHAM. I do not have it with me just now. My recollection is that at that time there was an effort to reconcile and harmonize any differences with reference to manufacturing in this country. Mr. CANNON. Yes.

Mr. LANHAM. And the contention of the Library Association at that time was at least it was acceptable to it and it would admit of importations.

Mr. CANNON. I do not believe, so far as manufacturing is concerned, there has been any opposition to the library importation provisions from the printing interests. That importation privilege was in the original 1909 act and it has never been changed except through customs regulations, that is, customs decisions in the Treas ury Department. The act has been interpreted a time or two, notably to include all the branches of a large public-library system, like New York, so that each one is considered a separate library and has the right to import single copies for use and not for sale.

Mr. LANHAM. Your interest in this is not for promiscuous importation, but solely importations that will protect the libraries in keeping their shelves complete?

Mr. CANNON. That is right, and for public use, and the present limitation of importation of a single copy for each branch on a single invoice is satisfactory.

Mr. LANHAM. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOLBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I take just a moment to add a reference to the Vestal bill as it passed the House?

Mr. LANHAM. Yes.

Mr. SOLBERG. At that time there was an arrangement between the authors and the printers by which there was a compromise provision as regards printing; but they did not reach in the Vestal bill a favorable compromise, so far as the librarian is concerned in regard to importation. I could read the language of the bill; but if you do not wish to have the time taken, it certainly would not, I think, now be agreeable to the librarians.

Mr. VESTAL. We are glad to have that information; thank you, Mr. Solberg. Will you kindly indicate the page on which that appears in the Vestal bill?

Mr. SOLBERG. Yes. The Vestal bill provisions as to the manufacture and importation begin upon page 26, section 28, and the importation clauses begin on page 28, section 30-during the existence of copyright, and so on.

Mr. LANHAM. I recall at that time there was some difference that we tried to harmonize in the Vestal bill.

Mr. SOLBERG. The harmony should not be and certainly was not what the librarians desired.

Mr. CANNON. In view of Mr. Solberg's remarks I should like to confine my approval, then, to the present act, because I have not read the Vestal measure for some time.

Mr. LANHAM. At any rate, what you and the association would be interested in is the right of importation of one copy for each library?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; that is right, and each branch considered as a separate library.

Mr. LANHAM. Each branch considered as a separate library?
Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANHAM. Of approximately how many would that consist?
Mr. CANNON. I do not quite get the question.

Mr. LANHAM. I mean how many importations would there be of a single volume, we will say?

Mr. CANNON. Well, it is impossible to answer that question directly, because the number imported would depend on the title, the popularity of the title, and the demand for the title; but, I think, generally speaking, it is not very considerable. The importation of foreign books, in my opinion, is limited pretty largely to reference libraries and the large public libraries. I doubt if the average small public library imports five copies of books a year.

Mr. LANHAM. How many libraries are there, roughly; could you

estimate?

Mr. CANNON. The last time I heard an estimate, there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 or 6,000 libraries of all types.

Mr. LANHAM. But most books would be limited to a very small number imported by the various libraries?

Mr. CANNON. About 50 of those probably would import the most of them.

Mr. DALY. Fifty would approximate the number that would want the books?

Mr. CANNON. That would do most of the importing.
Mr. LANHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Cannon.
Now, Miss Bendelari, we will hear you.

STATEMENT OF MISS MARY BENDELARI, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DESIGN, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Miss BENDELARI. My name is Miss Mary Bendelari. I represent the National Council on Design.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies, and gentlemen, when an individual or group works for the enactment of a better law, as a public service, over a period of 7 years and finally gets it through one House of Congress, a great responsibility rests with the other House to understand and give justice.

When the late Albert Vestal was chairman of this committee in 1930 a design copyright bill passed the House of Representatives. When it was in the Senate committee, the silk industry approached Mr. Vestal to split off just a few industries and let the bill pass for them. Mr. Vestal discussed this with me, asking if they included shoes, as I am a shoe designer, would I be interested in having the bill passed. It was then and is now my opinion that a bill should pass on the principle of the protection of art, not as a benefit for or an exclusion of any industry. It is either right or wrong. Mr. Vestal stood his ground for the principle, though he had spent many years working for the legislation, and, as you know, that did not become law.

Last year another such bill appeared, and we opposed it, as it did not remedy the evil, except again for a few industries. It is not fair that a situation which is doing so much harm should be cleared up for a few. It is my belief that the public opinion which will pass the bill will help enforce the law.

I am an American designer and was for 10 years a manufacturer and retailer of shoes. The work I present to you today is, with the help of my family and friends, a public service rendered in the belief that the accomplishment of our purpose, design copyright, will create for American youth a chance to own their own creative property. Perhaps it is kind providence which provides us, the artists, with their old friend, Mr. Lanham, as acting chairman this morning. I know Congressman Lanham's name and the names of the late Albert Vestal, Senator Duffy, and Senator Vandenberg will be names that the artists of this country will gratefully remember for many years, and their names will always live in the hearts of the artists of this country. Perhaps this year Mr. Lanham may see the reward of many years of patient work to help them.

One hundred and sixty years ago the birth of the first great nation of free men was signalized by the Declaration of Independence. Time and circumstance brought men and women to these shores seeking surcease and freedom from the oppressions of feudal Europe. A benevolent Providence guided the drawing of the most amazing

document of modern times-the Constitution of the United States of America

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

I call your attention to the fact that "liberty" means the freedom of voluntary choice; the state of being exempt from the domination of others, or restricting circumstances, which means the surrounding facts, means, influence, especially related to one's support and way of living.

These words are the most revolutionary on record. It is not a Government edict which the people must obey; but the people's edict which the Government must obey. The people are sovereign and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The secret of the Constitution's innate rightness was and is in its profound harmony with natural law, with moral principles, and with the public conscience.

Injustices and inequalities of the system that had been left behind caused the colonists to weave into this document protection for continuing justice to all men. But this Nation has progressed down through the years with one problem that the constitutional fathers had left unsolved. One man was great enough to see that the spirit of the Constitution was being betrayed every day that the Negroes were deprived of their liberty and property. Because of Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War was fought and won, reaffirming the dictum that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were not idle words. Today another slavery, which has hitherto escaped the attention of the Nation, is before us. The artists of this country are not permitted to own the fruits of their labor, any more than the slaves were before the Civil War. Yet so important did the founders of this country consider the property of the creators to be that, in the Constitution of a Nation of free men, their rights were honored by special protection, by a specific inclusion for the first time in history. Those instructions have not been fulfilled; art has not progressed. Beauty has been a prerogative only of the rich, and has not progressed as is apparent on every side. The exclusive right of the artist is a travesty; the legal protection afforded him a mockery. "We, the people" want that to be put right now.

Let us turn the clock back to conditions against which the colonies declared their independence and compare them with the position of the artist today. There was a chance then for everyone to make his living in his chosen work and to own the fruits of his labor. In the Declaration of Independence, it says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The word "independence" is defined as "not subordinate or subject to, nor dependent for support upon any government, person, or thing." One most grievous wrong, which helped cause the uprising of the colonies, was the copyrighting of the Bible by King George III. Many had come to these shores for religious and economic free