Mr. CUTTER. I should suggest the entire elimination of that provision.
Mr. CURRIER. Of the entire paragraph?
Mr. CUTTER. No; after the words "United States."
Mr. CURRIER. That was the suggestion I made some time ago--after the words "United States," in line 25.
Mr. CHANEY. Yes; precisely.
Mr. CURRIER. Would that be satisfactory to the people whom you represent?
Mr. CUTTER. That would be satisfactory. I think it would be satisfactory to all librarians.
Mr. HINSHAW. This would allow you to import, however, but one book, whereas you have had the privilege of importing two?
Mr. CUTTER. One book, but we are perfectly satisfied with that. I think any library would be. A ruling of the Treasury Department has held that a branch library is a library itself, so that in the case of a large library wanting a book for each of several branches it would be possible to import more than one.
Mr. CURRIER. With that stricken out, the people you represent would not object to sections 26, 27, 28, and 29?
Mr. CUTTER. No; it does not affect them.
The other point I wish to make is on behalf of another interest. I wish to speak a word in behalf of an interest which is not represented here at all--two interests, in fact. The first is the firms that are in the business of importing books into this country and are not represented and have not been asked to be represented; have not been asked to come to these meetings. There are certain firms that are not in the publishing business that are in the business of importing books.
Mr. CURRIER. I think we ought to say right there, as you say they have not been asked, that the committee invites everybody.
Mr. CUTTER. Yes; I mean up to this time they have not been asked.
Mr. CURRIER. Those who were not represented at the conference, as well as those who were.
Mr. CUTTER. Whether they were asked here or not I do not know. Of course, this being a public hearing, they had a right to appear. But the point I want to make is this: That a great many of our libraries have to import books through these men, because they get a cheaper rate of importation through them than through some of the firms that are also publishers of books. This would prevent the importation of some of these books through those firms. It would practically ruin their English business, largely ruin it; and on behalf of a library that uses that method of importation largely, it seems to me that some provision might be made for other importers than those who are publishers of books.
Those are the only arguments that I wish to present.
Mr. CHANEY. To what section of this bill do you now refer?
Mr. CUTTER. I am referring to the subsection of this same section on page 24--section 30.
Mr. CHANEY. Do you mean subsection E?
Mr. CUTTER. Yes.
Mr. CURRIER. No; the subdivision called "First."
Mr. CHANEY. Oh, I see.
Mr. CUTTER. I suggest this amendment to the clause reading, "When imported, not more than one copy at one time, for use and not for sale, under permission given by the proprietor of the American copyright."
I suggest leaving out the consent of the American copyright proprietor. That changes existing law only in these particulars: It allows the importation of only one copy instead of two copies, as the existing law does; it gives the importer who has established a business here based on legislation, and who is closely in touch--the firms that I speak of serve libraries and learned men mostly with expensive books and have practically no sale to the ordinary public--it would give them an opportunity, and it would give a scholar in this country who wants a book for a particular purpose for his own use and not for sale an opportunity to import it.
Mr. CHANEY. So that if you strike out "under permission given by the proprietor of the American copyright" it satisfies them?
Mr. CUTTER. It would satisfy the request of the importers, who are not publishers.
Mr. CURRIER. Do you appear for the importers?
Mr. CUTTER. I appear for one of them only.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that you are authorized to speak for the others?
Mr. CUTTER. I am authorized to speak for one firm only.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that you represent the other importing firms?
Mr. CUTTER. I do not; no. I am quite convinced that I would be allowed to represent them, but I have had no communication with them.
Mr. BONYNGE. But you think you state their views on the subject?
Mr. CUTTER. I have not any doubt of it.
Mr. CHANEY. You spoke of "ancient history" back as far as 1901. Do you regard anything back behind that as ancient history?
Mr. CUTTER. No; but it is ancient history in the book business. That is when the publishers of this country discovered that the Carnegie gifts had made the library trade so large that they must do something to make some more money out of it.
Mr. PUTNAM. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that Mr. Bethune, representing certain of the reproducing interests particularly--I ought not to limit that by the word "reproducing," but who represented at the conference the Reproductive Arts Copyright League--should be heard.
STATEMENT OF FANEUIL D. S. BETHUNE, ESQ.
Mr. BETHUNE. There are but two or three sections which the Reproductive Arts Copyright League wish at this time to comment upon.
Mr. Millet, on behalf of the artists, has stated that they are satisfied with the sections relating to paintings as they stand, but as I understand it the word "accessible," in section 14----
Mr. CHANEY. Whereabouts?
Mr. PUTNAM. It is the last line on page 10 of the bill.
Mr. CHANEY. I see.
Mr. PUTNAM. It is in the second paragraph in the Library print.
Mr. BETHUNE. That is such an indefinite, uncertain term that we think----
Senator LATIMER. What are you referring to; what term?
Mr. BETHUNE. The word "accessible"--"or if a work specified in subsections F to L, inclusive, of section 5 of this act, upon some accessible portion of the work itself or of the margin," etc.
Mr. CHANEY. Where would you put it?