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

which have brought about our interest in the sale of manufactured goods abroad, namely, American inventive genius, the American inventive genius which gave us the automobile, and gave us the moving picture. The moving picture is dependent to a considerable extent for its prosperity upon its ability to maintain its foreign markets, and that is dependent to a large extent on treaty rights. The treaty that is before you will, when accepted, give this industry more protection in foreign countries than anything of the kind that has been before us heretofore.

I name the moving-picture industry simply because that is the outstanding interest. There are many others. The authors and producers of the United States at the present time have protection against the copying of their products by virtue simply of bilateral arrangements with other countries. The bilateral arrangements vary a great deal in what they give, but all of them are characterized by this feature, that nationals of the United States have in the other countries, respectively, the same rights which nationals of the other countries have there. They have no affirmative rights granted to them by treaty obligation. Consequently, such rights as they have may be taken away at any moment by virtue of the act of the other country alone. Therefore we are in an uncertain condition as long as we try to protect them simply by virtue of this type of arrangement, and that is all we have at the present time, except in a very few cases, where we have bilateral treaties.

On the other hand, membership in the Copyright Union, brought about by adherence to the treaty before you, would give definite, affirmative, rights of a high character. It means that without going through any process in the other country, the producer of an American literary or artistic product has, by virtue of the fact that he has produced it here, that protection. He can go into the courts in the other country if that protection is infringed and base his rights on this treaty, which the other country is bound to observe by reason of its contractual relations with the United States, so soon as the United States becomes a party to the treaty.

I think I can illustrate what I mean by a very recent case. A citizen of California wrote a book. The book was of a character which I myself would not approve; but that is not in point at all. It was taken to Japan, it was translated into Japanese, it was published by a Japanese firm, and, if the report of the author can be relied upon, it was sold in Japan by the hundreds of thousands of copies. It was an inflammatory book, the kind that would sell. But the author received nothing for these hundred of thousands of copies that were sold. We have a bilateral treaty with Japan, but the bilateral treaty gives us no protection whatever in the matter of translations. We tried to get it when we negotiated the agreement and we failed. The Japanese would not give it. Japan is a party to the convention of Rome, and that convention of Rome gives protection in respect to translations. Therefore, had we been a party to the convention at the time this book was published in Japan, the American author would have had his full rights and probably would have profited by something like a hundred thousand dollars.

That shows the practical aspect of this problem that is before us; we have the opportunity to become a party to this multilateral treaty, which would prevent this sort of thing happening in the future.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the object of having the bill enacted, in addition to the treaty?

Mr. MCCLURE. The bill is to make the statute law of the United States conform to the treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the treaty give us the same protection as the statute?

Mr. McCLURE. The treaty would give complete protection without the statute. The only question is one of American constitutional law. Is the treaty self-executing? Personally, I believe it is, but since question has arisen as to whether such a treaty is or is not selfexecuting, it seems wiser to put through the statute, too. Moreover, I think it is our general governmental policy not to change statute law by treaty, but to change it by statute.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is the case I wanted to present to you. I will be happy to answer any questions if I can.

The CHAIRMAN. Have the members of the committee any questions to ask Mr. McClure? If not, Mr. McClure, we thank you very much. I think we will hear now from Mr. Flynn, representing the labor side. I think he has some objections to make to the bill or to the treaty.

STATEMENT OF M. J. FLYNN REPRESENTING THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIED PRINTING TRADES ASSOCIATION

Mr. FLYNN. Mr. Chairman, I represent the International Allied Printing Trades Association, composed of the five international unions of the printing trades, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.

The international unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor are not opposed to securing for American authors any possible protection which can be secured for their works, and in previous years, where we were conversant with the legislation proposed, we worked in harmony with those seeking what is sought here today. But if I recall correctly, there were provisions in the so-called "Vestal bill", and other bills, which protected American labor, which this bill does not.

The present copyright law calls for according copyrights to books that are printed and manufactured in the United States. This bill, without saying so, would repeal those provisions of the law. With 45 percent of the printing trades of this country unemployed at the present time, we can not very well see our way clear to going along with a policy which may further increase that unemployment. On page 2, lines 1 to 6, the bill provides:

Copyright protection shall be accorded without compliance with any conditions or formalities whatever for all works by such alien authors who are nationals of any country which is a member of the International Copyright Union.

That virtually wipes out the manufacturing sections of the present copyright act.

While labor is not opposed to a copyright act which will give the utmost of protection to American authors, we do not believe that at this particular time, with conditions as they are, we should be called upon to surrender that protection of the law which we feel justified in saying has insured employment for a great many printing tradesmen.

The International Allied Printing Trades Association-and I do not need to call the attention of the gentlemen of the committee to the fact that the same applies to all labor organizations-have had so much to do in the last year in trying to help recover from the depression we are in, that they have not given as much attention to this bill as they have given to copyright bills in the past, but we do believe that the committee should consider the measure carefully, and we do not believe the committee would be justified, with presentday conditions as they are, in favorably reporting a bill, which, while it does not say so, would repeal a section of the law which gives to labor protection in the printing of books.

In reference to the question of whether or not retaliatory legislation would be passed by other countries, we have listened to that since 1928. In 1931 and 1932, when the agitation for copyright legislation was more active than it is now, we were continually told that unless something were done, England would do thus and so. We do believe we should be forced to repeal sections of the statutory law which now exist, and which accord some protection to the employment opportunities of the printing tradesmen of this country.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would like to have the privilege of filing a brief, or having the International Allied Printing Trades Association file a brief, giving their attitude on this matter, after a more thorough analyzation of it. We cannot go along with it in its present form, either the statutory law or the treaty which calls for the repeal, without saying so, of the manufacturing provisions of the law.

The CHAIRMAN. When could you get the brief before us?
Mr. FLYNN. I should say within a few days.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask the representative of the State Department at this point whether the retention of the manufacturing provision of the present law as it relates to the printing provision, to which Mr. Flynn has directed attention, would in anywise conflict with the principle laid down in the treaty before us, and recognized in the treaty?

Mr. MCCLURE. I think it would; that is, the treaty itself, regardless of the act, would repeal that provision, should the treaty come into force, because the treaty would grant copyright regardless of whether the publication took place in the United States. Under the manufacturing clause we do not permit copyright in this country of books in English unless manufacture takes place here.

The CHAIRMAN. It would not be in harmony, then, with the principle upon which this treaty has been negotiated?

Mr. MCCLURE. It would not. The proposition which has been raised, however, can in very large part be taken care of, if we are in fear of competition from an influx of books in English

The CHAIRMAN. You mean printed in English?

Mr. McCLURE. Yes; by virtue of the tariff duties on those books, if we want to protect the printing industry here. As a matter of fact, there is a tariff at the present time on books in English.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I think there is a tariff. In the last act I think some duties were laid.

Mr. McCLURE. Yes; so that we are not without other means of protection if we do away with the clause.