situation to them; they knew enough about the mechanical inroads, and Currier said to me, "Harris, I was in my home town Christmas week and I went into a music store with my daughter and I asked the gentleman there whether the mechanicals hurt the sheet music and he said 'No; they help the sheet music."" He said, "I bought some records for my daughter." I said "Excuse me, Mr. Currier, did you buy any sheet music?" He said, "No.". I said "That is what I am down here for; you will not buy sheet music, but records." Every dollar I have made which I have to-day was made before there was any such thing as a mechanical instrument. When you heard a piece of music played by an orchestra, or heard it sung on the stage, you bought a copy of the music. Then the mechanicals came along and you bought a record, and very seldom a sheet of music. I have been in the music business for 33 years, and I know whereof I speak.

I sang over WOR four times, and an old lady called up while I was singing and asked if I would sing the first verse of After the Ball. I, to oblige her, sang the first verse and the chorus, and I received about 3,300 letters the following week thanking me for singing, but not one order for a sheet of music. Not one; and the lady said "I thank you so much, Mr. Harris, for singing those old-time songs; I am 87, and how a man who is 82 can sing so sweetly, I think is fine." Well, I am proud to be here to speak upon this bill. We came down here 16 years ago and Mr. Burkan came with us, and we did not have enough money to pay for him, but he came down without a cent and worked and fought and won the bill. A man said to me the other day "Harris, you must be worth a million dollars." I said "Not so loud; I have a million copies of music back there."

I do not wish to bore you any longer, as the Saturday Evening Post will contain on March 1 a serial entitled "After the Ball, or Forty Years of Melody," and will give the story of my life for 5 cents. [Applause.]

STATEMENT OF DR. M. LLEWELLYN RANEY, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

Mr. RANEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am in a somewhat solitary position here to-day, as all of those who have preceded me have had an article to market, whether they were authors, publishers, manufacturers-very honorable persons; they had reasons for being here. I, on the other hand, have the privilege and it is one-to appear in behalf of those who foot their bills. I am a custodian of public money, and a buyer of their product.

I am representing officially the American Library Association, whose position on copyright, in the sphere in which I shall treat it, has been indorsed by the following other national educational associations: American Association for the Advancement of Science; American Association of University Professors; American Chemical Society; American Council on Education; American Historical Association; American Philological Association; American Political Science Association; Association of American Colleges; Association of Urban Universities; College Art Association of America; Geological Society of America; Modern Language Association of America; and the National Education Association.

There is a certain advantage to the committee, possibly, in this isolation of mine. I have not participated in the conferences referred to this morning, which has resulted in a certain amount of the fire out of the flint; I have not, therefore, engendered the antagonism that found record in the forenoon's proceeding. I have entered into no agreement, and, let me say at this point, that the two speakers this morning were entirely without their rights when they appeared to state the alleged fact that the American Library Association had indorsed another bill; it has not.

I noticed, in reading the proceedings of last spring, more than once that the chairman and certain other members of the committee lamented the fact that no representative of the public had yet appeared at the table, and more than once was some speaker for special interests asked if he would not lay aside special pleading for a moment and answer as to how this thing would affect the public. I feel highly honored, therefore, and am keenly sensitive of the responsibility of endeavoring this afternoon to essay that task,

I recall that you are here to-day endeavoring to bring to fruition something which, on five different occasions, no lesser a statesman than Henry Clay attempted in vain. It is now not far from a century since that attempt was made. We are without the family of literature producing nations, and have for our companions among nations of the first rank only Russia and China. I take it that there is possibly no opposition in any direction against our finally taking the step which will place us not merely within the pale of nations that are in literature but we will be on its councils.

Before I address myself to one specific feature of this bill, which is somewhat in controversy, I want to record the humble opinion that, while I am not a copyright expert, this present measure is the greatest copyright measure that has ever been introduced into the American Congress. I believe, without question, that if, without any emasculating amendments, it is written into law, it will be at once the world over held as setting the pace in the world for advanced copyright legislation, and not only will we be at last welcomed into the family of nations that produce and enjoy literature but we shall, almost by unanimous consent, take our place mighty close to the head of the table.

I have great pleasure in voicing the indorsement of this measure, if for no other reason-and it is an honor, it is a great privilegethan to pay homage to one of the most efficient officials of the American Government. All of us who have known anything about the conduct of the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress during the past quarter of a century will be enthusiastic and will feel uncommon pride in the privilege of speaking in these last days in honor of the author of this measure. His reputation is not only without blemish and beyond compare in authority in copyright matters in the United States, but it is a pleasure to say that the finest account ever given of the Copyright Office is in the French language, and when he goes abroad and sits down in copyright circles, he sits down with the respect and enthusiasm of his conferees, even though his position is only that of observer. He was present, by designation of the President, when the league was formed at Geneva, and his report to the President at that time called forth from him a recommendation to Congress that we at once take measures to be admitted into that union. Each

succeeding President, without regard to party affiliations, has echoep that sentiment. Very fortunate it is that the question of copyright protection can not be made a political issue in any degree.

I think that a fair summary of what you will regard as the needs in amendment of the present measure as have cropped out in the discussion are these: The need for a clear title, universality, and a division of right. This particular measure before us, without, I think, any doubt, for the first time gives full flow and a straight channel to that section of the Constitution which governs the subject; it can not be read too often; let me quote it; it is Article I, section 8 subdivision 8, and it reads:

The 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.

That Constitution, including this section, was written at a fortunate time in the history of the world. Two centuries of controversy had closed with agreement. In England, 15 years before the Federal Constitution was adopted, from 1556 to 1774, to be exact, there was raging in England a controversy which has become epochal the world over. From that controversy and the debates of learned character, resulting finally in judicial decision in Great Britain, there emerged a clear understanding of what copyright actually is.

I suppose we have all carried in our minds the thought, without having looked into the history of the matter, that probably copyright arose from some uprising on the part of authors or the people to get a recognition of this property right. The first copyright act, as a matter of fact, was a fluke; what it accomplished was a mere accident. Other things were under way. The origin of copyright, as a matter of fact, was twofold. It arose from a fear on the part of royalty and ecclesiastical authorities of the power of the press. They were afraid of freedom of speech. The result was that with the invention of printing, royalty claimed the right to say who should print, and these presses were licensed, and only licensed presses could print. A specific work would be allowed to be printed, and, of course, by one of these licensed presses, in order to say to it that nothing dangerous to either the crown or the church should get publicity. You can see, therefore, a double origin, the fear of royalty and church of the freedom of the press, and the desire of these licensed presses forming themselves into an organization to see to it that only they had the right to print and that no outsiders should have the privilege.

From time to time, under the operations of the star chamber,. these parties brought their desires to Parliament and they would get fresh licenses or acts that would continue their authority that much longer.

Finally, in 1709, they came forward again, but at that time, fortunately, there were some prominent writers in the British Government, notably Dean Swift, of very great influence, and instead of fresh licenses being granted at the request of those petitioning, a measure was written which is now known the world over as the first copyright statute, the statute eighth, Queen Anne, 1709, coming into effect in 1710, which recognized not the publishers, but recognized the authors, and gave them a specified, limited term; in other words, an author's copyright of no perpetual duration was established by that act. It was fought bitterly and finally came to

decision in the House of Lords in 1774. That copyright was of benefit to the authors, but was not of a perpetual character. It was a gift of the law, and was not a natural right. Our Constitution was written shortly after that decision, and the copyright feature is embodied in this section of the Constitution.

In so far as those who represent the public have found reason to get into the public conflict on copyright questions, we have seemed to be able to trace the nature of our opposition to the views of those representing the public, to this old-time notion of a common-law right. Any copyright of a perpetual character is denied in the Constitution, to be sure, and that is still held in that spirit. As a matter of fact, one of the very best copyright manuals, written by those who are interested in the publishing business, is bold enough to proclaim the fact that that section of the Constitution is a mistake; that it was written under an improper conception of copyright and they should like to see it amended, if possible. As a matter of fact, as late as 1900 a bill was introduced here in Washington and referred to the Senate, to make the term of copyright 1,000 years. It, of course, died quickly in committee.

The particular section of this measure which I want to call your attention to is that which deals with the question of importation. It is section 41. Let me, in preface to that, paraphrase somewhat what it is that this section of the Constitution actually says. The Government, representing the people, calls an author before it, or an inventor before it, and says: "We need you; in fact we can't do without you; we agree in this section to say to you that if you will write for us a book, or invent for us, the public, a certain article, we shall see to it that a fence is put around you throughout your life, and for-under the operations of this measure 50 years after your death. That will prevent anybody else touching that, and protect you from those whom you forbid such touch; you will get the full emoluments; you will make the arrangements for its dissemination; any person whom you refuse the privilege of dissemination shall not touch it; we shall follow you with the police powers of the Constitution throughout your life and for 50 years thereafter. Understand that this right which we thus give you of freedom from molestation by anyone else is not an absolute right, not a natural right; as a matter of fact, under our Constitution there is no such thing as an absolute right." A man has not absolute right to his own life; it can be taken in expiation of crime; his country send him to the firing line and exact it from him in that way. This right you can do with as you please; but it must dovetail with other rights. In other words, the purpose of this provision is that we specifically desire to foster public education and any way that your sole exercise of this right will tend to deviate that purpose, we shall amend and circumscribe you; anybody else can not touch it, but you can not do altogether what you please with it."

Coming to this section, now let us see what it is here proposed, and what I assume to be the nature of the criticism of the publisher here, although he did not give the text of his amendment, what he asked to have changed. This says that when an author has copyrighted his work no piratical copy shall be admitted here any more than a piratical copy can be printed here. That kind of piracy is as unlawful as any other piracy. It goes still further and says that an

American author who prints his work here, and then has it reprinted in some country abroad, can, if he chooses, make an arrangement with that foreign publisher under which, by terms of contract, that foreign reprint can not come back into competition with his own work. There would be ample defense for a position, should I choose to take it, in connection with giving the authors' contribution worldwide dissemination, since the only purpose of saying to the author that "You alone shall use it" is to see to it that one who has not been authorized can not interfere. As a matter of fact, such a position has been written into the law of Switzerland, which went into effect in 1922, and that is the site of the International Copyright Union. I venture the guess that the officials of that union had no little to do with the framing of that measure. There it is the law that any author's contribution, no matter whether reprint or foreign work, or vice versa, has free course.

We do not oppose this provision; however, I personally think it is something we can very well inspect. I am a great believer in the fostering of American liberty. I am, myself, the son of a laborer, who gave all he had, including his life, to see to it that I should have what, through no fault of his, was denied him, an education. I can cite specific proofs of my friendliness for those who manufacture books.

In the framing of the recent tariff act I had the privilege to represent these same national educational organizations. We came to Washington and found in the House act very great changes had been made in the tariff measure, and at that time certain articles had been enormously increased; various items that had been upon the free list, some as long as since 1790, were once more dutiable. Upon inquiry, we learned that this was at the suggestion of labor. I sought the labor representatives out, and I said, "Is there any advantage to American labor in seeing to it that a work in a foreign language shall be made dutiable?" They said, "No." I said, "Is there any advantage to American labor in seeing to it that a book in the English language older than 20 years shall be dutiable?" They said, "No." I said to them, "Is there any advantage to American labor in seeing to it that an American coming into this country shall pay duty upon the books he brings with him?" He said, "Our purpose is by placing a high duty upon everything coming in, to stop this infernal practice of American publishers sending American authors' works to Europe to be printed, and coming back and finding it under the present tariff privileged, after paying the tariff, to continue the practice." I said, "If that is what you are after, we are on common grounds; I can meet your wishes.' They asked how, and the measure that is now a part of the tariff act was a suggestion of ours, given to the Senate only three days before the measure came out for consideration, which was that the old duty of 15 per cent upon books, English books, within 20 years, should be continued, but that there should be a higher discriminatory duty against books in the English language published in 20 years if of American origin; I had no objection to putting that duty at 100 per cent. I hope the effect has been that our American contracts for American works formerly going abroad have been stopped. If it is not, that is a tariff question, and not a copyright question. That is the way to solve that question; not in the copyright law.