So we find our great friend Putnam pleading for, of course, the English author who may be his client.

Well, we have not faith in book publishers any more than we have in other people. We know the practical side of things, and we stand here and urge this committee not to approve this bill. We stand here and ask this committee to recommend to these people that they maintain their agreements and understanding with the various groups they have entered into agreement with, and to work out their solution before bothering this Congress with problems of that kind.

We are willing, as far as we ean, to agree with them in order to enable us to get into the International Copyright Union, although I do not know whether there is so much value to be obtained from it. The only danger, we are told, is that there may be retaliatory legislation in Canada or somewhere else.

We are willing to be helpful, but in being helpful we do not want to be assaulted in this way, and every confidence, every faithful expression manifested by us treated in this way and this manner.

I ask the privilege of the chairman for the presentation of a detailed statement upon the bill, after further analysis of it.

Mr. LANHAM. May I ask a question, in order to understand your attitude? I infer from your statement that there have been conferences among various groups with reference to this bill, and some understanding resulting from those conferences. Hence Í infer that there must be some necessity for legislation on this subject. Now, are we to understand that your attitude is one of opposition to this entire bill, or do you think that this bill ought to be amended in certain ways?

Mr. WOLL. We are not in position to say that this bill ought to be amended or what. But I do say this, that the Authors' League, the motion-picture interests, the book publishers, periodical, and printing trades union, in consultation with the librarians agreed upon a bill, which I understand is the Dallinger bill-that is the bill all groups had agreed to; and I say if we did agree upon that bill, that is the hypothesis, the ground work, that is the basic proposal upon which these groups worked out their solution in cooperation with your committee.

Mr. LANHAM. Then I understand that you, and those whom you represent, do favor the Dallinger bill?

Mr. WOLL. I could not even state that, because I would have to go over it. I have been so engaged in other matters and I have not had the opportunity. But I say the Printing Trades Union have expressed willingness to modify the manufacturing to a degree which will enable us to enter into the Berne Conference, no more than that; and that we seek all protection we can up to that point. And if the Dallinger bill does that, we shall not object to that. But that is our position. We are willing to be helpful to the Authors' League, we are willing to be helpful to the book publishers and we are willing to be helpful to the periodical publishers, and to the motionpicture industry.

Mr. LANHAM. And, of course, you understand our attitude is that we want you all to be helpful to us in framing legislation, and that prompted my question.

Mr. WOLL. Yes, sir. But I say the authors have not come here with clean hands and clear conscience.

Mr. BLOOM. At the time of the last hearing before this committee there was no objection to the clause with reference to manufacturing in the Dallinger bill by your organization in any way, was there?

Mr. WOLL. I was not advised of any hearings and knew nothing of it. I do not know what time your hearing was held.

Mr. BLOOM. But you are acquainted with the manufacturing clause?

Mr. WOLL. Yes.

Mr. BLOOM. As contained in the Dallinger bill?

Mr. WOLL. I am not familiar with the bill at all. As I say, I have been so busily occupied I have not had the opportunity.

Mr. BLOOM. The only thing I would like to get clear is, supposing the manufacturing clause as contained in the Dallinger bill were to be inserted in the terms of this bill, you would then have no objection at all to any of the other clauses?

Mr. WOLL. I am not in a position to say that, because I have not had the opportunity to thoroughly analyze the bill.

Mr. BLOOM. I mean in an off hand way. There is nothing in there very serious at the present time?

Mr. WOLL. Of course, I will say this manufacturing section is the one that interests the employer. This is not a union question, because the Typothetæ is one operating open as well as union print shops, and is vitally concerned in this.

And may I say that we had our difficulties in various branches of the printing industry, some only doing book publishing and willing to sell out the balance of the printing industry in order that they might have the advantage of importing printed sheets and having them bound here.

Mr. BLOOM. But the same reports were given by the different committees at the hearing on these different bills; none of these committees with reference to the American Federation of Labor have changed their opinion in regard to this manufacturing clause?

Mr. WOLL. I may say to you that our position up to this present moment is to oppose any amending of the existing manufacturing sections, and our attitude is largely actuated by the position taken by the Authors' League. We feel that the Authors' League ought to clear their attitude of mind and come to the printing trades and assure them they were not double dealing and double-crossing them. Mr. BLOOM. This committee has nothing to do with the Authors' League or anything else. This is a bill presented by Mr. Perkins. Mr. WOLL. I understand.

Mr. BLOOM. And we are considering Mr. Perkins's bill.

Mr. WOLL. Of course, I understand as well as you do, that while Mr. Perkins introduced the bill, it is the Authors' bill.

Mr. BLOOM. I have before me the hearings of the previous committees on these different bills, and also the Dallinger bill. I understand according to these hearings that no objection was made by any of the printing committees of the American Federation of Labor with reference to this manufacturing clause, with regard to the entering of the United States into the International Copyright Union. You know of no change as regards the opinion up to the present time, do you, outside of this washing of hands.

Mr. WOLL. If I may answer your question in my own way, as I stated to you, representing the printing industry particularly in

this proposed change of legislation, I had no knowledge of any hearing upon the Dallinger bill. I have not had the opportunity of considering it in deatil-perhaps it is my fault, and I say it is-of examining the Dallinger bill. I am in no position to affirm or disapprove, so far as I may, in behalf of the printing trades and the printing industry, the Dallinger bill. It will first require analysis and study on my part.

I have given some consideration to this, briefly, but I am not in position to say anything as to the other provisions of this bill, excepting to say that we are interested in the manufacturing section.

This bill leaves out entirely what the Authors' League has agreed with us was an essential part. The statement read by Mr. Solberg even seeks to find fault with the manufacturing sections and repudiates even the spirit of friendliness that has been manifest by the men and women for whom he speaks.

I am not in position to say that by merely taking the manufacturing section of the Dallinger bill and incorporating that into the present bill will remove our objections to that bill.

Mr. BLOOM. That is the only clause that you have objected to at the present time?

Mr. WOLL. At the present moment. And I brought this salient point out: I am not in position to argue it, except as it is involved in the publishing rights of copyright, of giving exclusive privilege; that the committee must go extremely careful into that subject, or else freedom of speech, freedom of expression and of communication will be entirely destroyed, and everything will be done by license and exclusive right.

Mr. BLOOM. The first section of the whole thing just states differently from what you are stating, Mr. Woll, if you will kindly read it— with reference to the freedom of speech.

Mr. WOLL. I shall have nothing further to say.

Mr. BLOOM. All right; there it is.

Mr. WOLL. I will submit a brief, even if I am not privileged to speak.

Mr. PERKINS. I would like very much to have your brief. I happen to be a printer employing union labor, and I would like to get your opinion in this matter. I wish to say to you that the employing printers are in complete harmony, both those operating union and nonunion shops.

Mr. WOLL. Will you allow me to submit a brief?

Mr. PERKINS. I certainly will be happy to.

Mr. PERKINS. I wish to ask permission from the committee to have Mr. Gene Buck to introduce speakers in behalf of the proponents of the bill.

Mr. REID. I object to that. Why should any speaker need an introduction?

(It was moved, seconded, and carried that Mr. Gene Buck introduce the speakers.)

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, possibly it might be of great assistance to this committee and as a matter of record to introduce the gentlemen. They are distinguished authors, artists, dramatists, and composers.

First, owing to the fact that Mr. Augustus Thomas must leave, I would like to introduce him. Mr. Thomas is a member of the

Authors' League; he is a member of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers; he is a member of the Council of the American Dramatists; he is the author of "Arizona," the "Witching Hour," and the "Copperhead."

STATEMENT OF MR. AUGUSTUS THOMAS, NEW YORK CITY.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been interested by the controversy, as far as controversy developed around this table, because I felt that it would indicate to you the opposition that may come along when the bill is analyzed and considered, as it will be, by paragraphs.

And I want to speak to the principle involved, which has been so eloquently referred to by Mr. Woll. I, therefore, like him, shall make no attempt to analyze the bill because that will be done by men very much better informed concerning the specific subjects that are there.

I am glad that the question of the publisher and of the printer and the typesetter, respectively, have come up, because while I do not propose to persuade this committee or to attempt to persuade it to abandon the consideration of any of those questions, I should like as far as in my power lies to lift their consideration of this question and the consideration of the thing, which I take it they are endeavoring to do, somewhat above the level of any parasitic attachment to the things which, under the Constitution, they are authorized to protect. The question in my mind divides itself, from my point of view, into two departments: The authority under the Constitution, which is not mandatory but is permissive, and the desirability of acting on it. And if you will permit me to read the clause of the Constitution, with which you are so familiar, I will dispose, as far as I can dispose of it, of the first question of authority. [Reading:]

Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Just as objections have been made by the publishers and by the labor elements, there will be objections made by all of the intermediary interests that stand between the author and his public; and this committee will be called upon to modify the rights that it is granting.

I wish to submit for their consideration, not with the momentum of any great constitutional authority, but as one reading English and occasionally speaking it, the clause to which I referred, "The Congress shall have power to grant the exclusive right" and "for a limited time."

Now, I take it that no gentleman here will contend that if persons came to this committee asking for a right in perpetuity that the committee would act favorably upon that request; they would consider that this is limited by the statement in the constitutional clause that they may grant these rights only for limited times.

And just as that means exactly what it says, I take it that the word "exclusive" means also what it says.

This Constitution was not written in a haphazard fashion. Men sat in Philadelphia from May, 1787, to September of that year. Many times it was believed by the intelligent men in that extra

ordinary convention of 55 that the sessions were at an end. Feeling ran so high on many questions, and it is recorded in much of the literature that preserves the records of those meetings that that fear was constantly pressing.

It was dissipated by the final conferences that the men had when they were not talking for effect but when they were conferring-and the letters of that time speak of their frequent gathering in the tavern—and without going outside of the issues here, I have a kind of sympathetic belief that if there had not been a tavern adjacent to the statehouse in Philadelphia there would have been no Constitution. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. REID. Your reverence then don't go to the eighteenth amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. I did not catch the gentleman's question.

Mr. REID. I say, your reverence does not go to the eighteenth amendment?

Mr. THOMAS. By no means. I am with your namesake in the Senate upon the question of governmental murder there. But I don't want my opinion upon that subject in which I am better informed, both as interpreter and reader, to interfere with what I ar discussing. [Laughter.]

I take it that this committee must grant an exclusive right or none. That leads us up to the question as to whether it is desirable to grant any at all.

This power was given to advance the sciences by securing to the inventors the rights of their own invention and to advance the arts by securing to authors the exclusive exclusive right to their writings. I do not think that there entered into the minds of those men in that convention a thought of the journeyman printer, nor a thought of the international bookseller, nor, especially, a thought of the writer, as a writer, except so far as he was to be encouraged to do-what? To affect the emotional quality of the people.

I should like this committee to consider and to challenge in theit minds and elsewhere the statement that what differentiates a science or an invention from a writing or a work of art is the question of the presence of emotional quality and emotional appeal.

What is the value of emotional appeal? With our savings banks and our elevators, our grain fields, our great industries, we dig in and hold the trench that we have achieved. But every step forward in the whole history of civilization has been upon a question of emotional stir, and unless there is emotional stir in a people-unless there is emotional quality that may be called upon and invoked—that nation is dying from hardening of the arteries. The greatest American we ever produced as a writer has said: "Our inspiration comes in moments; our vice is habitual."

Everybody's inspiration comes in moments. No man can be in spirational all the time. He must occasionally consort with people who are "gluttons and winebibbers." But "Wisdom is justified of her children." There must be relaxation. But the inspiration which is emotional and which is sometimes called "enthusiasm" bears a close relation to religion. A great American psychologist says that "all emotions are in their essence religious, not theological, but religious, because seeming to be by a power outside of man-seeming to be of