for a fraction of the average American wage. The American workweek is generally established at 40 hours. As regards dictatorship countries it is needless to say free enterprise cannot compete with a wholly government-controlled economy.

The secretary-treasurer of the association by governmental appointment served as workers' delegate to the Tri-Partite Conference on the Printing and Kindred Trades held in Geneva, Switzerland, preparatory to consideration by the International Labor Office of a 40-hour convention for that industry.

The attitude of the European and Asiatic printing employers was so hostile to any reduction in the work-week that no favorable action could be taken. The same hostility was manifested during the second conference as reported by Delegate Frank X. Martel of Detroit, Michigan, who says:

"The attitude of the employing printers of the civilized nations at the Geneva Conference clearly indicates they intend to resist all efforts to the establishment of a uniform 40-hour workweek in the printing industries.

"The provisional record of the 1937 conference, issue No. 31, page 514, gives the roll call on the convention for the 40-hour workweek in the printing and kindred trades. This roll call will show that out of 115 votes cast representing the Governments, the employers and the workers, there were 72 votes in favor of the convention and 43 against it, or 4% votes short of the required two-thirds majority. The roll call discloses that the employers' representatives from the United States and the Soviet Russia were the only ones that voted in favor of the 40-hour workweek.

"The opposition to the 40-hour convention was led by the employing printers of the British Empire who had the solid support of the Government delegation of the British Empire and the Scandinavian countries who are under the domination of British influence.

"At the first session of the committee on the shorter workweek for the printing industry, the employers' representatives with the exception of the United States, Belgium, and Russia, voted to discard even consideration of a 40-hour convention during the 1937 conference. A majority vote, however, ordered a convention and the employers' delegates sat through the proceedings for a period of 2 weeks and then registered their vote in committee against the convention arrived at by the workers and governmental delegates. The official record of the remarks of the employers' delegate as printed in the provisional record clearly indicates the hostility of the European printing employers to the shorter workweek in the printing industry.

"Any thought entertained at this time permitting European printers to compete with American printers for the American market is indefensible."

It is thus plain that the European and Asiatic printing employers have a great advantage in production costs over American employers and they fully intend to maintain that advantage. The workers are not in a strategic position to engage in strikes for the reason that in most countries they are afraid of their governments or as in England feel the pressure of employer influence determined to keep trade advantage.

The printing trades workers in the United States have been successful in reducing hours and raising wages only because the market could stand the resultant increase in costs. To subject our printing industry to increasing burdens of foreign competition will destroy opportunity for progress and drag down established conditions which are the result of long years of patient effort.

PRINTING TRADES STRUGGLE WITH UNEMPLOYMENT

In view of all facts it is to be expected the printing trades unions will be alarmed by any law or treaty which will still further reduce the earnings of the members, place our standards of employment, wages, and hours in direct competition with low-paid labor in foreign countries and further contribute to an already aggravated unemployment problem.

It should be clear to all persons concerned that the letting down of existing bars against those conditions prevailing in foreign countries would bring about a chaotic condition. Even with the present protection, there has been and is continuing a very decided problem of unemployment. Any further moves in that direction must of necessity be opposed for the welfare of our own people.

The International Typographical Union keeps a complete record of employment and earnings and publishes full information for its membership, Similar records are kept by other printing trades unions but rather than cause confusion with too many statistics we will refer only to the Typographical Union records, which are typical.

UNEMPLOYMENT EXISTED EVEN IN 1929

That an aggravated condition of unemployment existed even in 1929, which is generally referred to as a high point in industrial conditions, is proved by the following table of actual earnings as compared with the weekly wage provided in the contracts.

It will be noted that in 1929 the average weekly contract wage was $49.31 while the actual average earnings were only $44.76, or only 90.77 percent of the wage which would have been received for full-time work.

As of June 20, 1940, that percentage of possible full-time weekly earnings has been further reduced to 80.67 percent. The actual average earnings have dropped to $38.02 as compared with $44.76 in 1929. Present actual earnings are only 88.87 percent of those in 1929.

ANNUAL EARNINGS STILL $27,000,000 LESS THAN IN 1929

We submit still further enlightening facts to show the total annual earnings of typographical union members in 1921 and from 1929 to 1940. During this period we saw the total annual earnings increase from $141,964,382 for the fiscal year 1921, to $183,874,801 for the year ending June 20, 1930, with substantially the same membership. Then this total annual income and purchasing power dropped almost precipitately to $116,505,212 for the year ending June 20, 1934, a reduction of approximately $67,000,000.

As of June 20, 1940, the total annual earnings have recovered to only $156,876,281, which is yet $27,000,000 under 1929-30.

We do not believe it is the desire of any Member of Congress to add further to this story of lost earnings and reduced purchasing power of many substantial citizens of this Nation for the possible benefit of others, and we do not believe this will be permitted once the actual facts are known.

To reduce the workday and workweek of its members the International Typographical Union from 1891 to 1922 expended nearly $24,000,000 in industrial conflicts in order to provide work, to improve working conditions, and to increase purchasing power.

With this tremendous effort we still are confronted with unemployment, and decreasing earnings due to some extent to foreign competition in imports of printed matter.

PRINTERS PAID FOR SHORTER WORKWEEK

In 1933 the members of the International Typographical Union voluntarily divided their available work and thereby reduced their weekly earnings by 16% percent, which was and is an additional loss to those regularly employed which does not show in total earnings, but does definitely affect each contributor and helps the recipient.

Since 1933 the members employed on newspapers have directly contributed in division of work to those who would otherwise be unemployed a total exceeding $58,000,000, not including 1937. In addition to the division of work the total benefits to members have exceeded $27,000,000, or a grand total of all benefits of $86,144,367.52. The table showing these expenditures by years ending April 30 of each year follows:

1 day's work per week contributed to the unemployed by approximately 35,000 of its mem-
bers on newspapers at average wage of $8 per day for years 1933 to 1936, inclusive..
Total..

$27, 904, 367.52

58,240,000.00

86, 144, 367.52

Surely Members of Congress will take no action which will nullify or make ineffective the degree of social welfare developed, established, and maintained by the members of the International Typographical Union and other printing trades unions.

PIONEERS IN SOCIAL SECURITY

The Typographical Union pioneered in social security, establishing in 1908 a pension for its members, the experience of which was given serious consideration in the development of the present Federal social-security program.

For pensions alone in 32 years the union has expended $31,376,675.

The union pioneered in funeral benefits and in this activity has during the past 49 years expended $12,283,759.46.

For education of apprentices the union has expended more than a half million dollars.

To maintain one of the finest sanatoriums and a haven of refuge for aged and incapacitated members the International Typographical Union has expended more than $9,000,000 in the past 50 years.

There can be no real desire to establish a condition in the printing industry which will in any manner interfere with, restrict, or discourage the continuance of such welfare activities.

With this record of continuous constructive progress and caring for our members we should not be required to defend the industry and our membership against the competition of foreign nations whose wages, hours and conditions of labor are not comparable in any respect with the conditions of this Nation. And we do not believe we will be so required when you know the actual facts.

For 100 years progress has been made. The life expectancy of printing trades workers has increased from 28 to 62 years. The average annual earnings have increased from $897 in 1909 to $1,977.09 in 1940. But the present annual aver

age is $395.27 less than in 1930, not considering that those regularly employed have voluntarily contributed 1 day each week for the direct benefit of the unemployed members.

The experience of the International Typographical Union is no doubt similar to the experiences of the other printing trades unions, therefore the foregoing statistical data will give you an actual, unbiased, and entirely competent description of the printing industry, its employment problems, and the fundamental basis upon which we honestly and sincerely oppose the International Copyright Convention as now proposed.

Respectfully submitted.

INTERNATIONAL ALLIED PRINting Trades ASSOCIATION,
JOHN B. HAGGERTY, President.

WOODRUFF RANDOLPH, Secretary-Treasurer.

M. J. FLYNN,
Legislative Representative.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate saying a few words, additionl, concerning a pamphlet numbered 99, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session; entitled "The Printing Industry and the Proposed Copyright Convention," and, further designated to be "Memoranda Regarding Probable Effects on the Printing Industry of Adoption of the Copyright Convention." The pamphlet was presented by Senator Hayden, July 20, legislative day, July 19, 1939, and ordered to be printed. We desire to point out that this is an anonymous document. It seems very unusual that such a document would be dignified by being printed at public expense. It is most unusual that anyone would give any consideration whatever to an anonymous document purporting to contain "expert" information. The value of "expert" testimony is dependent upon the qualifications of the expert testifying.

Should the committee give serious consideration to this anonymous document, because Senator Hayden presented it, we offer first, an emphatic objection to that portion of the anonymous document found on pages 8 and 9 under the subheading *2, Attitude of Labor," and, second; to refute further statements contained therein when the authorship of the document is disclosed. We feel no further reply needed at this time.

There was a suggestion made during these hearings that the bilateral treaty with Great Britain be amended to eliminate the manufacturing clause. This suggestion should be examined in the light of the selfish self-interest of the organization whose representative suggested it. If, in order to discourage ratification of the copyright treaty we are shunted off on another avenue winding up at the same dead end of elimination of the present manufacturing provisions, we will refuse to take the ride willingly.

American labor has made many sacrifices to support the democracy of England. We do not believe that the English Government or anyone authorized to speak for it would, at this time, jeopardize the continued support of the American labor movement by seeking, through an amended treaty, to transfer the jobs of thousands of American printing trades workers to England or other foreign countries. Organized labor is an effective bulwark against totalitarianism. The first act of a dictator is to abolish free trade unions. Democracy is furthered and protected by labor unions. Therefore, our democratic processes should protect labor standards raised to the highest level of any country on earth.

We suggest that the committee have in mind that the figures which we have quoted as being the potential job opportunities which may, through the elimination of the present protective provisions of the manufacturing section of the Copyright Act, be transferred to workers in foreign countries were presented to your committee more than 2 years ago and have never been challenged by any responsible governmental or other source.

We thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy and patience during these hearings.

Added statement of Woodruff Randolph, secretary-treasurer, International Allied Printing Trades Association, authoritatively speaking for the International Typographical Union, the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union, the International Electrotypers Union, the International Photo-Engravers Union, and the International Brotherhood of Bookbinders.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY WALDO G. LELAND, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF COPYRIGHT-HEARING BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, SUBCOMMITTEE, APRIL 17, 1941

In view of the questions that Mr. Randolph raised in regard to the manufacturing clause being assumed to be a formality of copyright protection, the Committee on the Study of Copyright wishes to make the following statement:

That whereas, in the present copyright law of the United States, the manufacturing clause is clearly a formality required of all works in the English language, because ultimately copyright is dependent upon its observance, in the draft of the copyright bill (S. 3043) which was introduced into Congress on January 8, 1940, by Senator Elbert D. Thomas, the manufacturing clause is no longer a formality for authors not citizens or residents of the United States, because their copyright is not there made dependent upon manufacture by American labor. Instead of being made a condition of copyright, the manufacturing provision in S. 3043 is merely a provision limiting and regulating the distribution in the United States of copies manufactured abroad.

In Le Droit d'Auteur, July 1940, following the first article of that issue which explains the provisions of S. 3043, there is a letter from Dr. Mentha, Secretary of the Berne Union, in which he accepts the above interpretation of the manufacturing clause of the said bill.

It is the belief of the Committee for the Study of Copyright that the modified manufacturing clause affords, on the whole and in the long run, fuller protection to American labor than the provision of the existing law.

WALDO G. LELAND. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Is there any other statement that anyone else wishes to make at this time?

Mr. W. G. LELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I file a supplemental statement on behalf of Mr. Ladas? It is not a controversial matter.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Very well. (The following additional statement was submitted on behalf of Dr. Stephen P. Ladas:)

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY WALDO G. LELAND, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF COPYRIGHT

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I ask permission to offer for the record a letter addressed to you by Mr. Stephen P. Ladas, who testified before the committee on Monday, April 14. I should like to point out that the statements in this letter seem to clarify the question in dispute between Mr. Ladas and the representative of the motion-picture industry with respect to formalities required under Italian law. It appears, as Mr. Ladas points out, that the formalities now required under Italian law for the copyright of American works are required because the copyright relations between the two countries are under the regime of Presidential proclamation and not under the regime of the Convention of Bern. As Mr. Ladas states in his letter, if the relations were governed by the Convention of Bern, the formalities referred to would not be required.

DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: 1. In connection with the hearing before your subcommittee on the International Copyright Convention, I fully realize that the subcommittee and the Senate are now fully informed on the subject and they will presumably consider the matter on the basis of broad considerations and not with regard to discussion on specific matters that have been indulged in at the hearings. However, in view of my inability to be at Washington tomorrow, I beg your permission to make two points in connection with the discussion of yesterday.