We did not start at this thing from the standpoint of any particu-lar industry. We attemped to look at this as a problem that had to be solved, and it had to be solved by somebody.

Mr. LANHAM. May I ask for a word of explanation, there?

Mr. GOTSHAL. Yes.

Mr. LANHAM. Piracy in this field is of course practically unrestricted; is it not?

Mr. GOTSHAL. Yes.

Mr. LANHAM. You were looking for piracy which was illegal; and just as a matter of explanation, in your particular field what piracy was illegal?

Mr. GOTSHAL. In our particular field-I hesitate to make this a matter of record, but there is practically no protection in the silk industry.

Mr. LANHAM. Except for patents?

Mr. GOTSHAL. Except in design patents-for designs. The piratecan operate in all places in our field, and when you have these treasures of originality, a small concern with a capital of nothing at all can go in and filch and make the most of everything, whereas your large concerns, upon whom the prestige and the prosperity of this country depend, are at the mercy of them, and they have these enormous investments which are simply frittered away in these original designs.

Mr. GOODWIN. Can you not give us two or three illustrations of the operation of piracy in the silk industry?

Mr. GOTSHAL. I will be glad to.

Mr. GOODWIN. I am entirely at sea on the subject myself.

Mr. GOTSHAL. I have been so close to this proposition for a good many months now that I would appreciate it very much if you gentlemen would ask me about the specific points you have in mind, so that I can answer you.

Take the Stehli Silks Co., which has a number of mills. They go to American design or foreign design. They employ these men or they buy such and such a design. Let us say it is printing, because that is easier. They have rollers upon which the design must be embossed or cut, so that it is a very expensive proposition. When that is done the merchandise is then run off from these rollers in thousands of pieces and sold to the cutting-up trade, or to the retailer. As a matter of fact, to-day most of this merchandise is sold to the cutting-up trade. By that I mean the people who make dresses.

Now, what happens? Stehli may think he has an absolutely original design; and let us say it is original, because we have many cases like this.

You say you are protected under the patent-design laws, but you are not. Under those laws it takes from 6 to 10 or 12 monthsand may be not at all-to protect that thing, because it is original in the sense that it is something unlike anything. Why, by the time Stehli has the patent, somebody else in some way has gotten that thing and put it on the market, and-this is the important thing they would put it on the market in an inferior production: so that the public does not benefit, and Stehli's investment in this roller, his investment in his sales force and in this merchandise, is all completely frittered away.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you there: From the fact that it is put out by a pirate, and usually in an inferior article, the public is deceived by this same design or copy of design; is that true?

Mr. GOTSHAL. The public is deceived, as a rule. I mean this: For instance, let us take a very fanciful design such as the skyline of New York. Here is a thing that was the production of one original idea. Some one put it on a piece of silk. Why should not he get the benefit of that?

Before that gets into the hands of the public somebody has taken that thing and put it on a cheap piece of material, and sold it to the public at a cheap price.

Now, some people have the idea that under our law there was some common-law right to the design, and that the Federal Trade Commission might step in; but there again I want to point out what has been the result of our investigation. We feel that there is no common-law right, and that there is no right to go before the Federal Trade Commission and ask for any relief. As a consequence, there is absolutely no remedy that is presented here to-day. We have got to come to you gentlemen and ask you for a remedy.

Mr. LANHAM. This question occurs to me: In the length of your right to the monoply that you have under this legislation, how does it compare with the design?

Mr. GOTSHAL. This law gives you from 2 to 20 years-the copyright law. What is it in the designers' law, Mr. Williams? Mr. WILLIAMS. Three and one-half, 7, and 14 years.

Mr. LANHAM. It is renewable as ordinary copyrights? These expire in 20 years.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Twenty years is the maximum under this law. Under the designers' law you elect at the beginning whether you will take the greater or lesser time, according as you believe it is necessary. You pay for the time, 312, 7, or 14 years.

Mr. LANHAM. Yes. Tweny years is the maximum time. I have here a copy of the French law, and as I understand, the law gives you 50 years' protection. France is protecting their designs, and as Miss Bendelari pointed out, that is the reason you have so much originality there.

In the matter of designs, there is no such necessity for limitation as there would be in copyrights of articles as they are, because necessarily designs are evanescent, and pass within a few years, do they not?

Mr. GOTSHAL. They are ephemeral, and that is the reason you need copyright protection and design protection. You need immediate protection from the time that the thing is put on the market. Otherwise, there is no protection at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Inasmuch as some of the members of the committee may not be quite as familiar as other members with what this "piracy" really means, and so when you speak of it may have a clear conception of what piracy is and what you are trying to convey in your argument, will you not define it?

Mr. GOTSHAL. Better than that, I am going to ask Mr. Hanson, representing the silk industry, to present that phase of the matter to you. I know that Mr. Hanson, who is one of the officers of H. R. Mallinson & Co., (Inc.), of New York, has samples with him, and I will ask Mr. Hanson to say something to you.

STATEMENT OF E. IRVING HANSON, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SILK ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, REPRESENTING H. R. MALLINSON & CO. (INC.), NEW YORK

Mr. HANSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we manufacture and print and weave silk designs. We distribute our products to every State in the United States direct by our own selling organization. We have our own designing department, consisting of about 15 American designers who create almost all of our designs, although we buy some in France.

We have had a very sad experience the last year, and I might say that design piracy has increased 20 per cent in the last two years. Ten years ago there was a gentlemen's understanding that designs. were not copied. In the last two years there has been built up in New York a group of pirates who have no designing organizations, no originality, and who live and feed on those who originate.

To answer the Congressman's question, here is an example of a design which we made and exploited last year with very great success, which was known as the bubble design [exhibiting design]; a design which was so popular that we determined it should be registered in the United States Patent Office. We applied for a patent on the 6th day of February. It was patented on the 22d day of May, three and one-half months afterwards. In the meantime we advertised that that design was patented in the United States Patent Office in our trade papers; but two people copied it prior to the time that we received our patent number-a silk manufacturer, the Portland Silk Co., and the manufacturers, "The Style Dress "—and we could not secure our injunction until we had received our patent number, and by that time 18,000 dresses had been made in inferior material, and had been disposed of; and the man in question had 500 pieces of material still on hand, which he was obliged to redye black, and distribute at a materially lower price, after spending all his time; and the proceeding cost us $1,500 in addition to the Patent Office cost, which was of no value to us. That was one example. Last year we brought out the early American series of designs. Mr. ENGLEBRIGHT. Could you not go in and seize those dresses? Mr. HANSON. No; we could only stop their sale. We could not

seize them.

Last year we got out what we called the "Early American" series of designs. We had Washington and Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, and so forth. This design I have here happens to be Old Salem [exhibiting sample].

We registered those designs in the United States Patent Office, and it took about five months to secure the patent numbers. In the meantime, Colston Brothers, of Fifth Avenue, New York, printed that design. The Betsy Ross Dress Co. sold the dresses, and many dresses were sold before we could get an injunction, because we could not get it until we served the injunction, and we could not serve the injunction until we got the patent numbers. I might say our corporation lost heavily from that in designs this last year, on account of design piracy, when we had sold a large percentage of the goods in advance and had cancellations by reason of the cheap imitations that came out on the market and made our goods worthless. We

had 15 designs made to sell in the neighborhood of $2.95 a yard, and we were obliged to sell them at less than $2.60, on account of the imitations. Here you have these samples. The original is on the left as I hold them here. The copy is the brown.

We hardly had that in the hands of the retailers or the dress manufacturers before we learned that an imitation was already on the market. We had this on sale. The yard material was worth $14 for the material necessary for a dress, and a ready-made dress was on the market at $8.95. The merchant himself was a sufferer as well

as we.

Here is a design that was only distributed to our customers 60 days ago. That is already in the hands of the cheap dress manufacturers, all over New York, in very inferior material. The public is being fooled and we are suffering.

Mr. GOODWIN. The one on the left is the original?

Mr. HANSON. Yes. The copy is the one on the right [indicating]. Here is another one that is not more than 60 days old, that is already on the market in very inferior material. Not only that, but the printing and the execution is all inferior.

I would like to leave these samples as an exhibit.

Gentlemen, we need protection for our designing department. We need protection for our manufacturers and retailers. They profit from the work of our 15 designers, from the work they originate, and they profit by our success, and our men are discouraged when this sort of thing continues to happen. We must have protection. Our Patent Office can not cover it and our design copyright law is not sufficiently broad. Thank you.

Mr. GOTSHAL. Mr. Chairman, may I say this at this time, that Mr. Horace Cheney, who is chairman of the legislative committee of the Silk Association, could not come to-day, but will be here to-morrow, and he would like to say a word. The legislative committee of the Silk Association, and the entire association, is also in favor of this bill. In other words, this is not just one group that is sponsoring it, but the entire association, after this investigation, are in favor of it.

I would like to ask Mr. Paul Bonner, who is vice president of the Stehli Silks Corporation, to make a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to make inquiry at this time whether anyone here is opposed to this measure. We are getting some very illuminating information here, which is simply cumulative on what we have had before. I do not know about the other members of the committee, but I know I have been favorable to this bill all along and am willing to report it now, and after hearing Mr. Bonner, my attitude is that if there is anybody here opposed to this legislation, let us, while we are all here together, see what they have to say about it, and what the respective parties have to say, pro and con. These statements will be ex parte, but you will have a chance to meet any objections made by those opposing it.

Mr. PERKINS. I make the suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that after we hear Mr. Bonner, if there is no special objection from those here representing any group, we hear from those opposed to the bill. The CHAIRMAN. I think that would be a very good thing to do. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Lanham has said that there did not seem to be any here opposed to the bill. The chairman was good enough, by

reason of the number of witnesses to be here to-day, to say to those who desire to express to the committee some of their views that might be construed to be in opposition to the bill, need not be present to-day, but some will be here to-morrow, Mr. Lanham.

STATEMENT OF PAUL H. BONNER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE STEHLI SILKS CORPORATION

Mr. BONNER. We employ about 3,500 people. We have mills in Lancaster, Pa., Mannheim, Pa., Harrisonburg, Va., and High Point, N. C. Our selling office is 200 Madison Avenue, New York. We have been in the silk business for almost a hundred years in this country, operating mills, weaving silks; printing them and dyeing them for 87 years.

The vogue for silks with applied designs, chiefly printed silks, came in very strongly about six years ago, as the result of a fashion created in France for that type of dress. Our silks are broad silks, and are practically entirely used for dress purposes.

At the time that these dresses came over from France, the models and American dress manufacturers and retailers were looking for similar silks.

They criticized the American manufacturer very much for his lack of originality of design and lack of beauty of design. They said, "The French people are far better. They have far finer designs; they are more artistic, and much more beautifully worked out and more beautifully colored. Is there any reason why you American manufacturers can not do the same thing?" There had been concerns in this country who put the matter of designs in the hands of dressmakers who were delegated to make flowers, or whatever it is, under the direction of a sales manager. Neither the dressmaker nor the sales manager had any ability or any training for these things, but so long as what they did worked out satisfactorily for the service, that was satisfactory.

We decided that it was high time that something should be done. about it, so far as America was concerned. We got very tired of hearing that these various manufacturers of France were able to produce designs which were infinitely more beautiful. We made an investigation in France and found that these men employed artists of recognized standing, artists whose pictures hung in the Luxemburg and other great art galleries. They were not only known in the field of applied design, but were equally known in the field of fine arts; and they said, "That is the only way you can get good designs." An artist is a man who has, studied the balance and form of design. He is a man who through training and experience is able to apply his knowledge of drawing and color to the ultimate use of the article for which he is designing. That was brought out in France in the early nineteenth century and the latter eighteenth century, when the first decoration of the legion of honor which was ever made was given by the Emperor Napoleon to Mr. Oberkrantz, the cotton printer. He employed the great artists of France at that time to make his designs for his cotton prints.

Napoleon visited this place, and was so overcome by the work that he had done for France that he took off his own legion of honor decoration, and pinned it on Oberkrantz.