Chapter XXXII: Section 4966: of the Revised Statutes should be repealed

altogether, and so far as its provisions appear in this bill they
should be limited to musical-dramatic compositions, and the
provisions for damages other than actual damages and for
imprisonment should be absolutely eliminated.

Very respectfully,

H. N. LOW.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Now we will hear the gentleman who represents the talking machines.

STATEMENT OF S. T. CAMERON, ESQ., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE COMPANY, OF NEW YORK CITY.

Mr. CAMERON. Gentlemen, the first objection we have to the bill is, in our mind, the most serious one, and one which has been several times touched upon heretofore, so that I shall not attempt to go into any very great detail in discussing it here, but shall simply call attention to the fact that we object to it, and point out to you why, in connection with our particular business, it is especially important.

If you will turn to section 4 you will find that it reads:

That the works for which copyright may be secured under this act
shall include all the works of an author.

Our position is that this is in direct contravention of the Constitution. If you will substitute in that clause the word used by the Constitution, and say that the works for which copyright may be secured under this act shall include all the "writings" of an author, then we do not object to that section.

Now, if you will take certain other sections of this bill, with that change made in section 4, and attempt to read them, particularly where the word "reproduce" occurs, or the word "reproductions" occurs, you will see the importance of it to us.

Take, for example, section 3, immediately above:

That the copyright provided by this act shall extend to and protect
all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted, any
and all reproductions or copies thereof.

If you read that word "reproductions" with the word "works" in section 4 changed to "writings," reproduction means a very different thing.

If you will turn to section 18, on page 14, subclause b, you will find this language:

Any arrangement or reproduction in some new form of a musical
composition.

Mr. CHANEY. What do you understand the word "works" to mean in section 4?

Mr. CAMERON. It may mean anything that is reduced to writing, or that is not reduced to writing. It may be an oral speech that is absolutely wafted upon the winds of the air and never gets into permanent form. In proof of that we go to section 5, line 20: "Oral lectures, sermons, addresses."

The talking-machine art stands in a somewhat different position from that of the perforated music roll. You take a sheet of music and you have Sousa's or any other band play that music into the horn of an instrument, a patented apparatus. That machine engraves lines corresponding to what? To the sound waves produced by the band or the voice of the performer on the wax or other tablet.

Now, if you make that word "works" read "writings," as I understand, as the Supreme Court has interpreted the word "writings," it means this, in its broadest signification: That the idea of the author has been recorded in some tangible form, in such a way that another, through the eye, may have the idea of the author impressed upon his brain. That may be a painting; it may be the work of an artist. I think the Supreme Court has included a painting under that term because of that very fact, that the idea of the artist was recorded in some tangible form and, through the eye of the beholder, the idea of the artist was conveyed to the brain of the beholder. That is what a writing is, as I understand it, within the meaning of the Constitution.

Mr. CHANEY. The effect of your argument is, then, to limit the word to something that can be read by anybody?

Mr. CAMERON. Not necessarily by anybody.

Mr. CURRIER. But by somebody?

Mr. CAMERON. Yes. I can not read Sanskrit.

Mr. CHANEY. I mean to say, that can be read by persons understanding the same language?

Mr. CAMERON. Yes; something that is capable of conveying to the reader, if you may call him such, the idea of the author.

Mr. CHANEY. And in that respect it would cut out the music-roll proposition altogether?

Mr. CAMERON. As my predecessor has told you, there is a dispute in regard to that, and I am not qualified to state. As far as I have been able to analyze the evidence, the preponderance is against the idea that the music roll can be read. But I do know this: There is a graphophone record of the disk form [exhibiting record to the committee]. There is a graphophone record of the cylinder form [exhibiting record]. I defy anyone--I defy Mr. Sousa to read that and tell whether it is one of his marches or whether it is a speech of a Member of Congress. [Laughter.]

Mr. CHANEY. They are often very much alike. [Laughter.]

Mr. CAMERON. They are both musical. [Laughter.]

Mr. MCGAVIN. They are alike in volume of sound. [Laughter.]

Mr. CAMERON. I am not making this statement theoretically nor as a lawyer. I make it as an expert in this particular art. I have spent months and months of time with the microscope myself striving to do that very thing, and I know it can not be done.

Now, let us go one step further. What is it that makes that graphophonic record valuable? I can take Mr. Sousa's score and I can select some person, some alleged musician in this audience, and I can hand him a graphophone and tell him to make that record, and it would not be worth one cent upon the market. It takes the genius of a Sousa to play into the horn. It takes the voice of the magnificent singer to sing into the horn; and it takes the skill of the mechanician who is operating the graphophone to make a fine record that has a marketable value.

You ask me if I would use Sousa's march, make that record and sell it, and not pay him any royalty. I answer, "Yes; I would;" because I have paid him royalty. Whenever Mr. Sousa publishes one of his pieces of music and puts it out upon the market and I pay the price of that music, that sheet of music passes from under the monopoly, just as when I patent a cornet and sell the cornet to Mr. Sousa, and he pays the price for it, it passes out from under the patent monopoly, and he has a right to use it. Suppose I should come here and say to you that every time one of Mr. Sousa's cornet players played the cornet that I had sold to him that he should pay me royalty for having played it! That is what he is asking of you. That is not all.

Mr. Sousa himself does not scorn, as he pretended to the other day, these "infernal talking machines." The day has been when Mr. Sousa himself came with advance scores and begged to have them put upon the machines, in order that they might popularize his own music. Nor is that all. He to-day is under contract, and he plays into these "infernal machines" with his band, and he is contributing, as he told you a few days ago, to stifle these "beautiful young voices that now have disappeared throughout our city and our land." [Laughter.] He does it for the almighty dollar. That is what he is after, and he frankly told you so.

Mr. SOUSA. I am honest, anyway. [Laughter.]

Mr. CAMERON. You are; and, as I said to you the other day, I respect you for it. All the men urging this bill are not as honest as you are, sir.

Mr. CHANEY. That is neither here nor there. We give them all credit for being honest.

Mr. CAMERON. I would not have made that remark if I had not been interrupted.

It was stated a moment ago, and it is a fact of which I wanted to speak, that the intention here is to give everyone a fair show. The gentleman here on my left (Mr. Webb) suggested that this bill would not prohibit the perforated music rolls (and the same question would apply to the graphophonic cylinder) from the reproduction of those pieces of music or other copyrightable works which had appeared and been copyrighted prior to this act. In that he is in error. Section 3 says:

Any and all reproductions, or copies thereof, in whatever form,
style, or size, and all matter reproduced therein in which
copyright is already subsisting.

So that it does not go only to matter that is copyrighted subsequent to the passage of this act.

Mr. WEBB. I was speaking particularly of section g. That was the section that the gentleman was objecting to, and I referred to that particular portion.

Mr. CAMERON. The act, however, would apply by reason of section 3 to subsisting copyright.

Mr. WEBB. Yes; that may be so.

Mr. CAMERON. There is a situation in the talking-machine art that is perhaps divisible. You see two distinct forms of records. The company which I represent--the American Graphophone Company--makes both of those forms. There are a great many other companies, some of them making the machines and the records, and some of them making only the records. Some of them make the cylindrical form of record and some of them make the disk form of record; but there are two large, prominent companies, one of which makes the disk form of record and the other of which makes the cylindrical form of record. As I say, the company which I represent makes both.

Follow me now, if you please. There is also as close a musical trust, as has already been said to you by my predecessor, in this country as it is possible to form. That extends not only throughout this country, but throughout the world. There are a few musical geniuses who are able to stand above it and make them scramble for the genius. You have two of them with you to-day, Victor Herbert and John Philip Sousa. But John Philip Sousa can not speak for the struggling young composer who is not powerful enough to compel this trust to come to him instead of the young man going to the trust.

How does that effect us? Did you hear any opposition to this bill from the attorney of the Victor Talking Machine Company? No. They make the disk form of record. Have you heard any opposition from the National Phonograph Works--the Edison Company--in regard to this bill? No. They make the cylindrical form of record. Why does the Victor Talking Machine Company come here with such a virtuous show of regard for the author, and say they have no objection to this? Why is not the representative of the Edison Company--the National Phonograph Works--here opposing this bill? Because, as I charge, and I think I can substantiate it before I get through--not here, but I mean before the hearings before this committee are through--there is under way the same iniquitous proceeding that was outlined to you by my predecessor in connection with the music rolls.

Mr. PETTIT. That is absolutely untrue, as far as the Victor Talking Machine is concerned.

Mr. CAMERON. You can have a chance to reply when your time comes.

One company gets the exclusive right to make the disk form of record from copyrighted music, and the other the exclusive right to make the cylindrical form of record. Let us assume for a minute that what the gentleman says is literally true. Let us assume, I say. Is it not possible for just that combination to be made, and should the American Graphophone Company, which has millions of dollars invested in the enterprise, honestly and fairly built up under the laws of this country, money put in and money which it had an absolute right to presume the law would protect--should that company be placed in the position where it should be practically driven out of business by any such monopolistic combination? Will you gentlemen give them that opportunity?

I am not prepared to say that this music publishers' combination is the most gigantic trust on earth, but it is an absolutely close and effective trust. You may reply that we have the right to play and put upon these records all of the old noncopyrighted productions, those that are now within the public domain. To that I reply that the perforated music roll man or the talking machine man who attempts to rely solely upon old music will go out of business inside of eighteen months. He has got to meet the demand for the popular airs of the day. He has got to be able to produce Sousa's and Victor Herbert's latest productions. "I want what I want when I want it." That is where the public stands. [Laughter.] You wait three years instead of fifty, and where would we be?

Moreover, we go to Japan, we go to China, we go to the various countries of the earth, and make these records--get the original records. We do not make the original record on that disk. We do not make it upon that cylinder. We make an original record from the voice of the singer. That original record in the case of the cylinder is first very carefully covered with plumbago, to render it electrically conductive. It is then electroplated with copper; by applying cold, the original record is shrunk out, and you then have a mold, which has on its interior a perfect counterpart of the sound groove cut upon the face of the original record. We pour into that mold melted wax, or a composition that is called wax in the trade. When that is hot, it takes the impression of the mold and retains that until it sets; and as it cools it contracts, and we are then able to withdraw that from the mold, and after trimming the ends, that reproduction, that copy, is as perfect a record as the original one. If it were not so, we could not make and sell a record for fifty cents when we have to pay the singer from $500 to $1,000 or $3,000 for making the original record.

Mr. WEBB. I was going to ask, How do you get Mr. Sousa's pieces? Do you pay him for it?

Mr. CAMERON. We do not; no, sir.

Mr. WEBB. Who does?

Mr. CAMERON. The Victor Talking Machine Company has an exclusive contract with Mr. Sousa, and he gets paid for that. He did not tell you that the other day.

Mr. SOUSA. That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. CAMERON. If it is untrue I am ready to beg the gentleman's pardon. I had that information direct this morning, but I will gladly withdraw it upon Mr. Sousa's word--gladly. I do not want to make any misstatement.

Mr. SOUSA. I have never received one penny for my compositions from any kind of talking machine, nor have I ever made a contract with any of those companies.

Mr. CAMERON. I did not state that. I stated that Mr. Sousa, with his band, played into the horns of these instruments to make these records and was paid for doing it.

Mr. SOUSA. An organization known as "Sousa and his band," employed just as any other body of musicians, in which I have no part myself, plays into the instrument. That goes under arrangements made with the management of that organization to play anybody's compositions that these firms may elect; it may be a noncopyrighted piece or a copyrighted piece, or anything else.

Mr. CAMERON. I am very glad Mr. Sousa stated that. He says that he does not play his own music only, but his band stands ready to play any other man's music, copyrighted or not copyrighted, into these machines.

Mr. SOUSA. Not myself; no.

Senator LATIMER. I want to ask a question of Mr. Sousa, so as to clear the matter up a little further. The statement is that you have a band that plays into these instruments, and you, I understand, have denied that?

Mr. SOUSA. No, sir; I do not deny that "Sousa and his band," an organization known as "Sousa and his band," play for talking machines.

Senator LATIMER. Do I understand you to say that you have no connection with that band?

Mr. SOUSA. I am the director of that band, but I have no personal part in the performance of those pieces. I have never been in the gramophone company's office in my life.

Mr. MCGAVIN. Do you play for anyone else besides the Victor Talking Machine Company?

Mr. SOUSA. My manager has a contract with them for so many performances.

Senator LATIMER. You have an interest in the band and receive profit from it?

Mr. SOUSA. Yes; surely.

Mr. WEBB. You allow your name to be used all over the country?

Mr. SOUSA. In the performance of these pieces, certainly.

Mr. CAMERON. That was my charge.

Mr. HERBERT. In regard to the untruth the gentleman has stated----

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to deny any statement that he has made?

Mr. HERBERT. Yes. In regard to this, naturally it would be inferred that it was the same case with me. In fact, he mentioned us two together. A band played into these instruments, calling itself "Victor Herbert's band," and I sued the talking machine company. That is what I got out of the company.

Mr. CAMERON. The gentleman misunderstood me. I have made no statement in regard to him, and I have no information in regard to him one way or the other.

Mr. CURRIER. He made no charge against you, Mr. Herbert.

Mr. HERBERT. Since our names have been linked all the time, I thought he intended what he said to apply to me also.

Mr. PETTIT. I would like to say to Mr. Cameron in regard to his statement about the Victor Company and Mr. Sousa, that whenever we have used Mr. Sousa's music, or rather whenever we used his band on Victor records, we always paid him for it--that is, we pay Mr. Sousa for playing.

Senator LATIMER. I want to bring out one point in connection with that. In making these records, if I understand, now, Mr. Sousa has a band that represents him, playing these pieces, and you pay for that music when you get it, or do you not?

Mr. CAMERON. Whoever employed Mr. Sousa pays for it.

Senator LATIMER. Then it is paid for when you get these records?

Mr. CAMERON. I do not wish to be misunderstood. We can take and do take one of Sousa's marches and have another band, with which Mr. Sousa is not connected, play, and we make the record; and in that case Mr. Sousa does not get any of the compensation whatever. None of that goes to him.

Mr. WEBB. But you do not advertise it as being played by Sousa's band?

Mr. CAMERON. Not at all. We advertise it as Sousa's march.

Mr. WEBB. You advertise it as a march by Sousa as a composer, but played by somebody else as the executant?

Mr. CAMERON. Yes. That is recognized as such a valuable thing to the composer, that John Philip Sousa has been to the office of the American Graphophone Company, in years gone by, with advance scores, and asked them to send them out, to advertise and help John Philip Sousa along. He will not deny it. Moreover, we are flooded to-day with artists that are struggling on the lower rounds of the ladder, that are not as high up as John Philip Sousa was a few years ago, either, begging us to do the same thing for them. I mention that to show you that even John Philip Sousa, before he got where he bestrode the musical world like a colossus, even he recognized the advertising value of the talking machine to a composer. We are not doing him such a great injury.

Mr. SOUSA. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the gramophone, these talking machines, are really of very recent date. I believe the gentleman will agree with me when I say that if we go back fifteen years or sixteen years ago, we looked upon them purely as a toy. I remember the first one I saw here in this city where I was born. A gentleman had a man bark into it, and it was a remarkable thing to hear this thing bark----

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. I would suggest, Mr. Sousa, that you are taking up this gentleman's time. Unless you want to specifically deny something that he has said, or ask a question, it is hardly fair to him.

Mr. SOUSA. If I ever did allow the Gramophone Company to do it, it was because I did not think it was as important to them or to me as I do now.

Mr. CAMERON. Please do not confuse us with the Gramophone Company. It is a different thing.

Mr. CURRIER. Do you wish to deny that you are a musical colossus? [Laughter.]

Mr. SOUSA. No. I will admit that. [Laughter.]

Mr. CAMERON. One thing more in regard to the constitutional question which I mentioned. I shall submit, or the company I represent will submit, a written brief. You will be addressed on that point much more ably than I can address you by Mr. Walker, who will succeed me.

I want, in closing, however, to emphasize one fact which my predecessor, I understood, was told was unnecessary. With all deference to the chairman, who said so, I disagree with him. That is the fact that not only was the American Graphophone Company and the talking-machine interests not notified, not only were these conferences--quarterly conferences, we might call them, held in secret----

Mr. CURRIER. I think you gentlemen had better all make it clear, when you speak about these conferences, that you do not refer to committees of Congress.

Mr. CAMERON. No, sir; we do not. We refer to these star chamber proceedings, before this bill was introduced into Congress.

Mr. CURRIER. By whom? Not by anybody connected with the Congress?

Mr. CAMERON. By Herbert Putnam and the men he brought around him. That is by whom.

Mr. CURRIER. I wanted it made clear that you were not referring to any committees of Congress.

Mr. CAMERON. Every effort was made to keep us from knowing that any such bill was under way. It was not merely an act of omission, but it was an act of commission. That is not all. Not only were the American Graphophone Company not notified, but, if you will turn to the list of those present, you will find that one of those whom I have mentioned here, the representative of the Victor Talking Machine Company, at the third stage of the proceedings, was present--as what? As one of the musical publishers of the country, representing the Victor Talking Machine as one of the musical publishers of this country. See how close the association is.

The gentleman who follows me will point out that association a little closer. I think by that time the committee will realize that my suggestion of a close cooperation between the National Phonograph Works, the Victor Talking Machine Company, and the Musical Publishers' Association is well founded.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we will meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock to hear Mr. Walker.

Mr. BURKAN. I represent the publishers and the composers. An attack has been made here, and we feel that we should get at least several minutes to answer the charges that have been made.

Mr. CURRIER. You will have some time to-morrow. We meet at 10 o'clock to hear Mr. Walker for an hour. After that you gentlemen will have an opportunity to be heard, undoubtedly.

Mr. CROMELIN. I was to appear here to-day for the manufacturers, in behalf of the talking machine interests, and was to follow Mr. Cameron. If the chairman pleases, I should be very glad to continue the first thing to-morrow morning, and let Mr. Walker follow.

The CHAIRMAN. I could not consent to that, because I understand that Mr. Walker has been notified that he will be heard the first thing to-morrow morning.

Mr. CROMELIN. I think Mr. Walker will agree to that.

Mr. WALKER. It will be quite consistent with my convenience to let this gentleman precede me for whatever time he wishes.

The CHAIRMAN. How long would you want?

Mr. CROMELIN. Probably fifteen minutes to half an hour.

The CHAIRMAN. With that understanding, Mr. Walker, he will precede you.

Mr. WALKER. Yes, sir. And I am to have an hour after that?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, June 9, 1906, at 10 o'clock a.m.)

COMMITTEE ON PATENTS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

_Saturday, June 9, 1906_.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a.m., conjointly with the Senate Committee on Patents, pursuant to adjournment.

Present: Senators Kittredge (chairman), Clapp, and Smoot; Representatives Currier, Dresser, Bonynge, Campbell, Chaney, McGavin, and Sulzer.

Mr. PUTNAM. I have one or two communications, Mr. Chairman, in effect addressed to the committee, which I offer for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be inserted.

The communications referred to are as follows:

WASHINGTON, D.C., _June 8, 1906_.

The JOINT COMMITTEE ON PATENTS,
_United States Senate and House of Representatives_.

GENTLEMEN: On behalf of the Photographers' Copyright
League of America, having participated in the conferences called by
the Librarian of Congress upon the subject of a new copyright law,
we beg to say that we give our hearty assent to the principles of
the bill as proposed. Of course, there are minor matters which
might have been otherwise drafted by us, but we as cheerfully
surrender such particular items, as did many other interests
represented at the conference.

Copyright legislation has for its basic principle the protection of
the property of the copyright owner, and though remedies for damage
are manifestly necessary, prevention of injury is the matter of
highest importance to the copyright owner. Legislation which acts
as a deterrent is the active principle of protection prescribed by
the Constitution. For these reasons we believe the pending bill has
been framed upon logical and consistent lines which, if enacted
into legislation, will doubtless form precedent for other countries.

Very respectfully,

PHOTOGRAPHERS' COPYRIGHT LEAGUE OF AMERICA.
B. T. FALK, _President_.
PIRIE MACDONALD, _Delegate_.

HORACE PETTIT LAW OFFICES,
_Philadelphia, June 1, 1906_.

HERBERT PUTNAM, Esq.,
_Librarian of Congress_, _Washington, D.C._

DEAR SIR: Referring to the proposed bill to amend and consolidate
the act respecting copyright, a copy of which has been handed me,
with your circular letter regarding suggestions, I would say that
I would propose that the following clause be added continuously to
the end of section 3:

"_And provided_, That nothing herein contained shall apply to
sound records made or to be pressed from dies or matrices
manufactured prior to the passage of this act."

That the following be added to section 18, paragraph (_b_), line
7, of said paragraph, between the word "composition" and the word
"any," viz, "including any talking-machine record."

The amendment to section 3 is mainly designed to protect
talking-machine manufacturers who have invested very large sums of
money in records and in dies or matrices for pressing the same,
many of which contain musical compositions the notation of which
has been copyrighted, but which under existing laws these records
do not in any manner infringe. To now take away the right to use
these matrices and records, into which so much money has been put,
would be very unjust and inequitable and work a great hardship
upon the talking-machine manufacturers--that is, if my reading and
understanding of this bill is correct. This would tie up a very
large amount of capital, and place the talking-machine record
manufacturers at the mercy of the owners of subsisting copyrights.

The object of the amendment to section 18, paragraph (_b_), is to
relieve any doubt that records containing the characteristic
articulation of the human voice, or the characteristic
instrumentation by a performer, adapted for reproducing these
characteristic utterances and performances to the ear are intended
to be included as copyrightable matter under section 4 of this
bill.

I think there will be no question but that the particular
characteristic utterances of a singer, or recitationist, or of an
actor, or of an orator, or the particular instrumentation of a
pianist, or leader of an orchestra, etc., independent of the
composition itself, whether it is copyrighted or not, should be
equally entitled to protection, as a photograph or reproduction of
a work of art.

It matters not whether the subject-matter of the record is
otherwise copyrightable or not. If the piece played is copyrighted
as a musical composition, it can not be reproduced on a sound
record, in accordance with the bill, without the permission of the
composer. A Paderewski, however, may play the copyrighted
selection, and a record of his rendition of it, with all his
personality and individuality thrown into the piece, should be
entitled to a copyright on a sound record for reproducing
purposes.

This is true also of the voice of a Caruso or a Melba singing
either a copyrighted or uncopyrighted piece. It is true also, as a
further illustration, of the recitation by Henry Irving of "Eugene
Aramas' Dream." What is here copyrighted in these records is the
individuality and personality of the rendition by the performer.
It is the picture of the voice, or of the instrumentation, as, for
instance, a copyrighted photograph is a picture of a person or
thing.

Should another performer play the same piece played by a
Paderewski the personality of Paderewski would be absolutely
wanting, and the same difference between the two performances of
the same composition would be in the respective sound records as
would exist at the actual performance of the respective pieces.
The same differences between Caruso's rendition of a selection
from Rigoletto and a concert hall singer's rendition of the same
would exist in the sound record and the reproduction therefrom as
would exist in the actual singing of the selection. This is true
regarding personality of every voice and instrumentation recorded.

So-called talking-machine records in this respect differ quite
materially from the mechanical organ and piano, for the reason
that a so-called talking-machine record is an exact record of all
the modulations, and all the characteristic articulations of the
voice, as well as of all the characteristics of an
instrumentation. In other words, it is an exact picture of all the
merits and demerits of the original, and the original is
reproduced with an exactness so that frequently, at a distance, in
the present perfected state of the art, the reproduction may very
well be mistaken for the original.

This record of the voice and instrumentation for sound reproducing
is an art which was not commercially available, or perfected, when
the earlier copyright laws were passed, and therefore were not
included. It is doubtless the intention of the framers of this
bill to include such sound records as copyrightable matter, but in
order to relieve the bill from any doubt it may properly be
expressed in this section as I suggest.

Hoping that this will meet with your approval, I remain,

Yours, very truly,

HORACE PETTIT.

THE PLAYWRIGHTS LEAGUE CLUB,
_New York, N.Y., June 2, 1906_.

LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, _Washington, D.C._

DEAR SIR: We are in receipt of your favor of the 31st ultimo, with
copy of proposed copyright law. After careful consideration the
provisions of this law seem admirably suited to the purposes, and
its framers deserve great commendation.

As circumstances do not permit my attendance at the hearings, I
would consider it a favor if you would read this letter to the
committee, if not all of it, then the portions which may not be
referred to at the hearing, should anything herein referred to
fail to be considered. The latter paragraphs of the letter are
especially brought to your attention.

In section 1, subdivision C, provision is made for the protection
of an "oral delivery" which has been prepared. Would it not be
well to specifically allow a speaker to announce at the conclusion
of an extemporaneous address his intention of copyrighting it, not
permitting this announcement, however, to interfere with the
liberty of the press in reporting portions of it?