our opponents for gaining publicity or for their objectives, and I refer to this letter again of October 22 from Mr. Mills, of the American Society, addressed to the editor-in-chief, and sent to every editor of a newspaper in the United States. I will refresh your memory by saying it starts out this way [reading]:

Frankly, sir, we write this in the hope if inspiring an editorial by yourself. And then he closes, after seven pages of a sincere and well-written appeal, that these editors write to the American Society and obtain additional information which he would be glad to furnish, in order to further the distribution of their propaganda. These are a few of the editorials that appeared.

Representative BLOOM. They had the opportunity of writing whatever they wanted to in their paper, answering this notice sent out by Mr. Mills. But when you broadcast it they had no opportunity of answering you, and at the time you say you submittedyou asked the different broadcasters about delivering this speech of yours. Did they know about this bill? Did they know what was in this bill? Did they have a copy of the bill?

Mr. KLUGH. The broadcasters?

Representative BLOOM. Or just took your word for it?

Mr. KLUGH. What is your question?

Representative BLOOM. When you broadcast this, you said the different broadcasting stations knew about this legislation. Mr. KLUGH. Yes; that is correct.

Representative BLOOM. Did they have a copy of this bill?

Mr. KLUGH. Yes; not only this, but the one before, and the one that went before that.

Representative BLOOM. Mr. Klugh, do you remember receiving that telegram from me? [Handing paper to the witness.] Mr. KLUGH. Yes; very well.

Representative BLOOM. You did not answer it?

Mr. KLUGH. No, sir. Do you know the reason why?
Representative BLOOM. I would like to,

Mr. KLUGH. The reason was that I did not think I should encourage you in usurping the powers of the chairman of the committee.

Representative BLOOM. Is that so? In answer to that I will read this to show that I did not usurp the authority [reading]:

PAUL S. KLUGH,

MARCH 30, 1926.

1265 Broadway, New York City: Propaganda started by you Sunday evening over the broadcasting stations advised listeners-in to write Senators and Representatives who are members of Congressional Patent Committee with reference to the proposed copyright bill is misleading and not exactly accurate. I am receiving many, many letters from people who are under the impression, as a result of your statement, that this is an unfair and unjust bit of legislation, and as the Representative in Congress from a district in the city of New York, as a lover of the radio and fair play, I feel that these misleading statements, which go to the listeners-in throughout the world, should not go unchallenged, and that before any legislation should be enacted by the Congress, either myself or somebody else representing the committee who knows the situation thoroughly, be given an opportunity to debate this with you over the radio so that the public may know both sides. Radio public is 'entitled to know the exact facts and you did not state them Sunday night in your radio talk. Awaiting your answer, regards.

SOL BLOOM, M. C.

93693-26-28

I state, Mr. Chairman, and which contradicts Mr. Klugh entirely, that either myself or some one else on either one of these committees who know the facts should have the opportunity of debating it. And, therefore, Mr. Klugh, that is in answer to your statement that I was trying to usurp the powers of the chairman of either committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Klugh, have you anything further? Mr. KLUGH. I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. KLUGH. Of course, this matter of propaganda, Mr. Chairman, has been discussed here so fully that I do not think we want to go into that again.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we understand that, Mr. Klugh.

Mr. KLUGH. I would like, in passing, however, and since we had so much mud thrown at us yesterday, I would like to refer to the other method used by the American Society. It is a matter of history that they have given three expensive parties here in Washington. I have never attended them because I was not remembered with an invitation, but I understand they cost as much as $10,000 apiece. They usually occurred just prior to a hearing, and now that the authors' league bill is up, I think I can prophesy that there is another party coming, and I would like to see how they run it. Mark that down, Buck, if you will.

Representative BLOOM. Mr. Klugh, in justice to the committee and what has been

Mr. BUCK. I will answer it.

Representative BLOOM. I would like to know whether it is Mr. Klugh's thought and he wants to infer that any entertainment or meeting or gathering of any kind was to the effect that we wanted to influence any member of these committees?

Mr. KLUGH. Not at all; far from it.

Representative BLOOM. Then I do not think it is right to make that statement. At some time some one is going to read this and say that it was charged that the society was trying to influence this committee. I want to say I have never attended one of these parties. Senator DILL. I have. It did not seem to affect me very much, excepting that I enjoyed it.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume, Mr. Bloom, that the committee knows about that. I do not know anything about it. I never heard of it until now.

Representative BLOOM. It would naturally leave some thought in the minds of people reading this record that the Society of Authors, Composers, and Publishers are coming to Washington and getting up these wonderful parties for the sake of trying to influence this committee. I don't think it is fair and right.

Mr. KLUGH. To conclude the matter, Mr. Chairman, of course it is a matter of record that the general manager of the society did broadcast from a station in New York City for a half hour a few nights after I broadcast. But I rather think that was a slip on their part. So far as we have been able to discover they have not made a formal application or a sincere endeavor to go on the air with any station; and that is going to be answered by Mr. Harkness. And yet I admire and compliment their strategy in coming down here and complaining about our using broadcasting facilities and

say they have been denied the same privilege, without any evidence of that kind, and when you hear the fact, that you will come to the conclusion that they have not been denied, and that it seems that this is an admirable smoke screen, and it is their camouflage.

Representative BLOOM. Do you wish to say that these broadcasters you represent will be willing to give to Mr. Buck and the other representatives the privilege of addressing the same listeners-in from the broadcasting stations?

Mr. KLUGH. The difficulty there is that you constantly think of this loosely bound together broadcasting membership as a gigantic organization that controls its members. Now, I assure you, and you can learn from our constitution and by-laws that are already in the record, that we have no interest in these broadcasting stations, and no control over them, and I can not make you any promises on behalf of the broadcasters.

Representative BLOOM. You could use your influence, could you

not?

Mr. KLUGH. I would be glad to do that.

For the correction of the record, it was brought up here by someone that we were the ones who requested the Department of Commerce to bring the copyright matter into the fourth radio conference. I do not know whether you brought that question up, Mr. Bloom, or not, but it was somebody here, and at the time I was not sure just who did it, and I fear that the record will show that my answer was not as straight as it should be.

Representative ВLOOM. You mean committee No. 9?

Mr. KLUGH. Yes.

Representative BLOOM. You mentioned it, yourself, and then I read into the record Mr. Hoover's statement with reference to committee No. 9.

Mr. KLUGH. Yes; but the question arose as to who asked the conference to consider it.

Representative BLOOM. Mr. Hoover said, himself, that he had received many requests that this should be brought up at this conference, and Mr. Hoover stated to committee No. 9, and that is in the record

Mr. KLUGH (interposing). That is true.

Representative BLOOM (continuing). That he did not believe that should be brought up, but he would allow it to be brought up, but not permit it to be acted on.

Mr. KLUGH. That is correct. Now, to correct the record, I would like to say that the Broadcasters' Association never asked Mr. Hoover to bring that up in that meeting, and to the best of my knowledge no broadcaster asked that. But the one who did request it was the American Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers, as I am going to prove to you, just taking a minute. This letter is from Mr. Mills, addressed to all broadcasting stations, dated October 24. [Reading :]

We recently suggested to the Department of Commerce that the subject of use of copyrighted music in broadcast programs be made a topic for discussion at the forthcoming Fourth Annual Radio Conference which convenes at Washington on November 9.

Now, I went over to the Department of Commerce, Mr. Chairman, in order to verify that, and I find that the request for that came

from the American society, and the record of the hearing is that it came from us. It did not, and I am very glad to correct that. Now, to conclude this, gentlemen-I am sorry that I can not go into the correction of so many misstatements that were made, but I shall have to leave that to the others to do the best they can with it; and they will probably do better than I can. I did not mean to

intimate that.

But to remove all of these smoke screens, and getting down to the real justice, what do we want? It is this, in a nutshell: We want simple justice. We realize that we have to have this music. We realize that this American society controls 90 per cent of the music the public wants to hear. We believe we ought to pay fully and fairly for it. So that you have the novel situation of these men holding material wanting to be paid, and ourselves over here perfectly agreeable to pay.

The next point is, what should be paid? We say we will pay what they want, and ask them to write it into the bill. So that the question of rates does not apply at all.

Now, then, when you have a simple proposition put up to you of that kind, your mind immediately turns to what motive can these men have for opposing the bill. It almost looks as though it were drawn for them, and that is the construction we really do want. I think Senator Dill will recall that when the matter was first discussed be believed that the American society would become the chief proponents of this bill. That is several months ago, and in those months, Mr. Chairman, we have searched in vain for a real motive for opposition to this bill. A real motive, until we came here. We make the simple request that the present law be modernized and write into the law broadcasting. Write anything you want. We are not asking for anything new. And then we find a most carefully prepared defense to the mechanical paragraph, and then for the first time we learn why this bill is opposed..

Why, the reason is, gentlemen, to remove from the present law of 1909 your mechanical paragraph. Obviously, they are spending this great amount of time and endeavor to lay the groundwork right in this committee here, not so much for this bill, but to get your mechanical paragraph out of the law if they can.

Now, of course, they will encounter in the committee in the House where these hearings are held-they will encounter great opposition to the removal of that; and it will be shown why that is a good thing for the American public. It will be shown why it is a good thing to have the music available to all the owners of phonographs and player pianos, instead of creating a situation which would make it possible for a certain number to be produced on the piano-player roll or record and it could not be played on the others. The universal use of the record would be destroyed there.

Now, the same thing pertains to broadcasting. There is only one way to settle it, and that is for Congress to regulate these rates. Make them five times as high as we believe we ought to pay, but regulate these rates. Write it into the law. And I have one final suggestion to make.

Representative BLOOM. Pardon me. Before you make that sug

gestion

Mr. KLUGH (interposing). This is right on this line, Congressman, and then I will be glad to yield. And that is this, that there may be some truth in their feeling that to draw a law that sets a rate for all time would be unfair, and I want to offer this as a suggestion of our desire to settle the matter rather than pull for something that would oppress anyone. There may be something in that. And if there is, I hope you will write into the law, if you approve of it, a provision whereby these rates would be renewed at certain periods, say five years, or three-year periods, by some constituted authority. If the radio commission that is being discussed is not formed, then by the Interstate Commerce Commission, or any other competent body. We have no desire--and I mean this for those who are interested in the writing, for you, sir-we have no desire to permanently place this business of broadcasting upon a basis where you would not be fully and fairly paid. If there is merit in your argument, and if this suggestion for amending it would not seem to meet your objection, I hope the committee will take cognizance of it.

Now, I can only close by expressing, on behalf of the association, our appreciation of the courtesy you have extended to us. And I want to take this opportunity to publicly express to Senator Dill and Congressman Vestal, the drawers of the two bills, our appreciation for their sincere efforts to find some solution of this problem which has irritated and harrassed both sides for a period of three years, and for which there seems to be no satisfactory settlement, excepting a permanent and fair settlement which may flow from this legislation. Representatove BLOOM. Now, one question: Was it your thought that since this bill was presented, the Dill bill, that then the authors, composers, and publishers came in with the idea of doing away with the compulsory licensing clause? That is what you said, that they thought you said this was a good idea to eliminate that. Do you not known, Mr. Klugh, that for years back the authors, composers, and publishers have been before the Patents Committee of both the Senate and House trying to do away with the compulsory licensing system with reference to phonographs? This bill had nothing to do with that. So you are wrong when you say this gave them the thought that this was a good opportunity to do away with the compulsory licensing clause.

Mr. KLUGH. May I answer that?
Representative BLOOM. Yes.

Mr. KLUGH. The first effort of which I am aware to eliminate that mechanical clause was in connection with the Perkins bill last fall, and your Authors' League bill is an outgrowth of that.

Representative BLOOM. But you said that was the opportunity Mr. Klugh. And since this Dill bill was put in that these people came in to eliminate it. That is not a fact, and you know it. Please be fair.

The CHAIRMAN. I think perhaps the committee should conclude for to-day, and if there is no objection we will meet here to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. I think Mr. Harkness desires to make a statement, and Mr. Buck, and we will close to-morrow.

We will adjourn now until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 1.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet on the following day, Thursday, April 22, 1926, at 10 o'clock, a. m.)