Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

You have, as I have said before, these two questions of monopoly, those that may be deemed necessary or lawful, because the public interest requires a monopoly, and those that, on the other hand, are condemned. In either event you have regulation as an historic practice on the part of this Congress.

A necessary monopoly, for example, will be the telephone company. It would be unbearable if you would have to have five or six telephones on your desk to communicate with people. You only have to have one, and because there is such a monopoly Congress regulates it. On the other hand, if you have a monopoly which is not of a necessary character, like I said about the monopoly in bread, Congress can either order its dissolution by law, or it could proceed to regulate it.

Representative WEFALD. Or take it over.

Mr. TUTTLE. Yes; or take it over, which is a third alternative which had not occurred to me. There is nothing unusual here. We have a monopoly. They have said so to us; they have said so in their letters; of course, they will not come in here and say that. Representative BLOOM. They leave that to you.

Mr. TUTTLE. They leave it to me to quote their expression, but if Mr. Mills can get away from what he has told us, he is really more able than I thought he is, and I thought he was the ablest man I know. So under the circumstances we have right upon the face of it a monopoly, and we say, therefore, that it is effected with a public interest and falls within the portals. Now, gentlemen, this word in closing. We leave our problem with you. I think we have a right to obtain some kind of solution. We welcome any suggestion. We are not wedded to this bill. If this committee wants to appoint an advisory subcommittee that will sit down with these gentlemen and with us and work out a solution, we will sit in and we will go at it. either with the purpose of regulation, or for some definite kind of contract, which will afford the three elements we are after, of stability, equality, and fairness. All we want is somebody who will see that we are treated fairly in the matter, so that at the end of each year we are not hauled up, with a noose around our neck, up to the top of the toes, with the big toe almost off the ground, and say, "These are the rates for next year," for you can not bargain when you are in that position, and that is the situation we are in.

Representative VESTAL. I have always subscribed to the principle that the producer should have the right to bargain and sell his product. I wonder if you subscribe to the same principle.

Mr. TUTTLE. I do subscribe to the same principle, but I will say that he has not the right to defeat the other fellow's right to free bargaining and selling by going into a monopolistic combination. Representative VESTAL. Now, gentlemen, Senator Butler has said to me that it would be impossible, practically, for the committee to meet to-morrow, on Saturday, or on Monday.

Senator DILL. I could not be here Monday and it may run into Tuesday.

Representative VESTAL. Yes; Senator Dill has told me.
Senator DILL. It is on the Reed bill.

Representative VESTAL. As I understand, this concludes the case of the proponents of the bill?

Mr. TUTTLE. Yes, sir.

Representative VESTAL. Would it be satisfactory to the opponents of the bill to take up the hearing a week from Monday?

Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman, that would be perfectly satisfactory with us.

Representative VESTAL. I believe it would satisfy the members of the Senate committee better, from what Senator Butler has told me and Senator Dill.

Mr. BUCK. We prefer that.

Representative VESTAL. And if that is satisfactory, then we will continue these hearings at 9.30 o'clock on Monday morning a week from next Monday.

Representative HAMMER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest when you begin hearings again you go on with them and have night hearings, if necesary.

Representative VESTAL. That will be satisfactory with me, if it will be with the other members of the committee, so we can go ahead and get the hearings over as quickly as possible, and with that understanding the committee will adjourn to meet next Monday a week, at 9.30, to hear the opponents of the bill.

Mr. BUCK. That is perfectly satisfactory.

(Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned to meet Monday, April 19, 1926, at 9.30 o'clock a. m.)

TO AMEND THE COPYRIGHT ACT

MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1926

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

COMMITTEES ON PATENTS OF THE UNITED STATES

SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., in room 412, Senate Office Building, Senator William M. Butler (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Butler (chairman), and Broussard, and Representatives Bloom, Bowles, Lanham, Goodwin, Hammer, Wefald, and McLeod.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we begin the hearing I would like to offer for the record a letter which I have received from Secretary Hoover, addressed to the chairman, which, if there is no objection, will be inserted in the record. The language of it is as follows:

MY DEAR MR. SENATOR: There have come to my attention the absolutely incorrect statements made before the joint hearings of the Senate and House Patent Committees to the effect that in the fourth radio conference I advocated the placing of a license fee upon radio receiving sets. If you think wise, I should like to submit the following statements for inclusion in the committee records.

I have continuously opposed any policy whereby the Government would undertake to place a charge upon the listener through a license fee placed upon radio receiving sets, such as is done in some foreign countries.

I expressed this view at the first radio conference, in 1922, and have repeatedly reaffirmed it in various statements since. In my opening address before the last radio conference, I said:

"Some of our major decisions of policy have been of far-reaching importance and have justified themselves a thousandfold. The decision that the public through the Government, must retain the ownership of the channels through the air with just as zealous a care for open competition as we retain public ownership of our navigation channels has given freedom and development in service that would have otherwise been lost in private monopolies. The decision that we should not imitate some of our foreign colleagues with governmentally controlled broadcasting supported by a tax upon the listener has secured for us a far greater variety of programs and excellence in service free of cost to the listener. This decision has avoided the pitfalls of political, religious, and social conflicts in the use of speech over the radio which no government could solve it has preserved free speech to this medium."

In a statement made at the opening of the first radio conference, February 27, 1922:

"One of the problems that enter into this whole question is that of who is to support the sending stations. In certain countries, the government has prohibited the use of receiving instruments except upon payment of a fee, out of which are supported government sending stations. I believe that such a plan would most seriously limit the development of the art and its social possibilities and that it is almost impossible to control. I believe that we ought to allow anyone to put in receiving stations who wishes to do so.

[ocr errors]

In an address by radio on the opening of the Fourth Annual Radio Exposition September 12, 1925:

93693-26-15

221

A few years

"Now, it is often said that the listener in the United States receives an extraordinary service without paying for it. But in the fashion we have developed the organization of the radio in the United States the listener is free from any direct charge for programs. And in this we differ fom the methods of foreign countries who seek to support broadcasting by tax on the listener. ago much anxiety was expressed that we could not maintain good programs of entertainment and the delivery of public information without devising some system of tax upon the listeners. It has been my aspiration that we should keep the home free from constant annoyance of any attempt to assess the cost of broadcasting upon each receiving instrument. And I have believed that the industry would develop far more rapidly in this matter than if we pursued the European plan. But beyond this, support by taxation means a limited number of Government-controlled broadcasting stations, and therefore much less variety of program, much less competitive endeavor to please the listener, and above all constant dangers of censorship."

In a statement issued from the Department of Commerce, February 8, 1925: "A misapprehension which I would like at this time to correct is that any suggestion has been made by me or the Department of Commerce that there should be a tax on the sale of radio material for the provision of a national program. Such proposals were discussed at the recent radio conference but were abandoned, and at the present moment it seems evident that from the vast increase in broadcasting stations there is no need for a direct or indirect charge upon listeners in order to secure service."

Faithfully yours,

HERBERT HOOVER.

Representative LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, may I say here that I am bringing to the attention of the committee two communications by Mr. Edwin Waller of San Marcos, Tex., being correspondence that he had with Mr. F. D. Robertson, of Dallas, attorney for the Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers represented here.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Buck.

Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to present to the committee one of the greatest living composers and the vice president of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, Mr. John Philip Sousa.

STATEMENT OF JOHN PHILIP SOUSA, PORT WASHINGTON,
LONG ISLAND, N. Y., VICE PRESIDENT AMERICAN SOCIETY
OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS, AND PUBLISHERS

Mr. SOUSA. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Mr. Buck has requested me to come here and say a few words, a very few words, on the feeling and the experience of a composer. Knowing myself perhaps better than I do anyone else, I will select myself as the one to talk about.

I would like to start by saying that I belong to what I believe is the finest profession in the world. It is one that is far and above any other that I know anything about. It is perhaps the only profession that never brings sorrow. A composer has much the better of the lawyer because the lawyer goes into court and sends a man to the penitentiary and I imagine at times he sorrows over that, and the judge sends him to the gallows and I imagine that he at times sorrows over that. The doctor is always at the bedside of suffering, either imaginary or real, and the soldier is out to kill or to get killed. But the composer in a man's bridal day gives out joy in his music; in the man's burial day he gives out consolation. Therefore, I think it is the sweetest and the finest profession in the world, and there is nothing in the activity of the people or the Government of this country that I would exchange for my profession and my place in it.

E

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »