(1) First-class rights to produce; (2) stock; (3) Chautauqua and other small rights; (4) movie; (5) talkie; (6) radio.

What difference is there between these rights, and those he had before motion pictures came into vogue, the addition of motion-picture rights, except that now they took away from the producer his vested right and gave him merely a privilege or a license?

Five years ago the authors grabbed all they possibly could from the producer, and conceived the idea of divisible copyright-mind you at the very inception of the organization now known as the Dramatists Guild-and they then caused this bill sponsored by the motion-picture interests to be drawn. Look to their meetings, look to their minimum basic agreement, and then see whether it was not with malice aforethought, that it was drawn so as to circumvent the producer, and so as to give to themselves everything and nothing to the producer who made their play possible, and they attempt to present arguments to show the soundness of their position.

When first the bill was presented, one of their sponsors, William H. Osborne, said the reason for it was that they could not come into a court room if the several parts of a play were not copyrighted, and then that the motion-picture companies wanted their rights to be properly copyrightable so that they would not be hampered. The motion-picture interests sent their counsel, Louis Swartz, to represent them before the Congressional Patents Committee, likewise Weil. In opposition, it was shown that nobody could steal your picture, and if you could not get it on the law side of the court, you could get in on the equity side of the court, and preserve your rights. So that it seemed for a time that this was abandoned.

It must be apparent that there is something ulterior behind the bill, and that this ulterior purpose is to defeat the birthright of the producer. The author does not want the divisible copyright bill for any purpose other than for Congress to define and split up the word "produce," and to give him the right to take every emolument that grows from "produce," and to give nothing to the producer

If the author acquires the right to have the motion picture and the other rights separately copyrighted then he will deal with the firstclass manager for first-class rights, and with the motion-picture companies for radio, talkie, and television.

Now take the producer who makes a representation of a play, and though it is a failure, he pays the author his royalties each and every week, and he feels that he could recoup himself perhaps by continuing the play in another community if it is a failure in one, and he chances going along through a season hoping against hope if the play is a failure. At the end of the tour, he may have lost thousands of dollars but the author is whole. Should the producer lose the right to recoup by virtue of stock or talkie, radio, television, and so forth? Is it business? Is it fair? The producer does not make one production but makes many, and if the testimony before the committee be true, that 8 out of 10 productions are failures, certainly he is giving the author an opportunity to live. He is giving thousands of people an opportunity to work. He is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in theaters and in making productions on the gambler's chance of 2 out of 10 being successful. Nevertheless, the author receives his royalty and the manager loses his money, and the author is kept alive by being paid; actors and actresses are being kept in an industry;

the by-products of the industry are working; scenery and costumes and other things are being manufactured, and hundreds of millions of dollars are being paid out in salaries and rents by the producer, and with losses or profits, whatsoever they may be, and invariably losses should not the manager be entitled to recoup?

Do you gentlemen want to take away from him the right or the chance of recouping by dividing the copyright into as many parts as the author seems to think he wants, and by making a new definition for the word "produce" or "exhibit" than what was intended by the lexicographer? Is this fair?

Now, if the producer was entitled to stock as a matter of right from time immemorial, and if talkie is the development of stock, and if it is true that stock has been annihilated in the United States through the advent of talkie, then if talkie is stock, which it should be, should the producer be deprived of that? Should he have to worry because selfish interests in a large industry desire to so split up the word as to force the producer to a mere pittance by bargaining with him as to first class, and refusing to bargain as to others? Should he be compelled to fear competition with talkie and motion pictures against the first-class theater, with a charge of 35 cents or less for the movie, where as a first-class play charges $3.50?

When a talkie is to be produced, actors are engaged for the length of time that it will take to make a talkie, and at the termination of that engagement are discharged. The talkie is made and the film in tin cans is sent all over the country, nay, all over the world, and is exhibited in theaters in every city of the world. It may have been initially at a large cost, but the records of the moving-picture companies show the terrific profit which is brought home to it. When a first-class producer presents a play, then in addition to the terrific initial cost of production of the play before the curtain goes up, the actor and actress continues week to week so long as the play is presented, and each week instead of paying no salary, the producer pays the salaries of living people so that the industry may thrive. Take away from the producer his by-product and you take away the spoken drama. Take it away and kill the industry. I said this before and I say it to you again. Pass the copyright bill in so far as divisibility is concerned and you gentlemen of the congressional committee will be the pallbearers of the first-class drama in the United States. will put hundreds of thousands of actors out of work and all the byproducts that go with it. Leave the copyright bill as it stands and let the people contract between themselves as to their rights, and you will assist the industry in living. Do not be misled. The harm you can do to the industry will not be overcome by the gain that may come to the author and to motion-picture companies. It can never be repaid.

You

The industry can not thrive with the by-products taken from it. It has been scraped to the bone already. The few successes can not overcome the large number of failures.

That the authors are not badly off may best be ascertained by an examination of the figures given by me to the committee during its public hearings, when I showed the vast amounts of money paid by the producers to the authors, and these amounts were exclusive of the amount received from motion picture and stock.

It is rather curious that Mr. Bickerton, the arbiter in the industry, who spoke with authority, so he said, said the first-class managers were securing something really substantial in that they were securing copyright. How ridiculous this assertion is. Where in the divisible copyright bill, as proposed, does the first-class producer acquire any rights at all? The best he gets is first-class rights to produce. The author has the copyright, and if the author wants to sell it, he will sell it, but the producer will never have it.

Why not, having especial regard to the past history of the show business, strike all divisible copyright features from this bill, and let the managers and the authors sit down between themselves and negotiate their own contracts without the interference of Congress. Congress certainly has far greater problems to worry about than whether an author's book is split into 10 parts or not.

Before you gentlemen write into the copyright bill the divisibility clause, write into it the additional clause providing that the producers have copyright coextensive with the author in any play that the producer presents, and then you will have solved all the troubles of the producer, and will have aided him in that which he is entitled to. To-day he practically rewrites the author's play, and he makes the production which is seen by the motion-picture company from which the motion picture and talkie are made. Therefore, he is entitled to just as much as the author is, and if you will have done this, something constructive and beneficial will be done for the industry. But if you adhere to your determination to make this divisible copyright a part of the law of the country, then one of the great institutions of the United States will be closed to the public, namely, that of the drama, and on the outside of the first-class theaters will appear this legend: "To let-thanks to Congress."

This memorandum is concluded with the sincere hope that the divisible features will be eliminated from the bill.

Respectfully submitted.

O

WILLIAM I. SIROVICH.

AIR MAIL FLYER'S MEDAL OF HONOR

MAY 28, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. WATRES, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 101]

The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 101) to authorize the award of the air mail flyer's medal of honor, having had the same under consideration, unanimously report it back to the House with the following amend

ments:

On page 1, line 11, strike out the words "distinguished flying" and insert in lieu thereof "air mail flyer's medal of honor".

On page 2, line 1, at the beginning of the line strike out the word "cross".

On page 2, line 7, strike out the word "cross" and insert in lieu thereof "medal".

On page 2, line 9, strike out the word "cross" and insert in lieu thereof "medal".

The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads has for several years had under consideration the matter of authorizing an award to air mail pilots who have distinguished themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in such service. The accompanying bill is reported by unanimous vote of the committee. The advances made in commercial aviation in the United States have been due in the greatest measure to the air-mail service. Flying on fixed night and day schedules has involved pioneering which rivals any in history. Contending with the most dangerous elements of storm and fog has in many instances called forth skill, courage, and devotion to duty of the very highest order. It is believed proper that Congress should make provision for some recognition of outstanding service in this field.

Congress has recognized the value of paying proper honor to those who perform heroic acts to promote the security of travel upon

HR-71-2-VOL 4- -20

railroads engaged in interstate commerce and to encourage the saving of life.

In the act approved February 23, 1905, Congress provided, as follows:

That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to cause to be prepared bronze medals of honor, with suitable emblematic devices, which shall be bestowed upon any persons who shall hereafter, by extreme daring, endanger their own lives in saving, or endeavoring to save, lives from any wreck, disaster, or grave accident, or in preventing or endeavoring to prevent such wreck, disaster, or grave accident, upon any railroad within the United States engaged in interstate commerce: Provided, That no award of said medal shall be made to any person until sufficient evidence of his deserving shall have been furnished and placed on file, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the President of the United States.

The following letter from the Postmaster General indicates the approval of the Post Office Department to the proposed legislation: Hon. ARCHIE D. SANDERS,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. SANDERS: I have your letter of January 15, transmitting a copy of H. R. 101, a bill introduced by Representative Kelly, for the award of the air mail flyer's medal of honor.

A suitable recognition of the self-sacrifices and extraordinary actions on the part of the pilots who have played so important a part in the development of commercial aviation through the medium of the air mail service would seem to be appropriate, and this department would offer no objection to the favorable consideration of this proposed legislation.

Very truly yours,

O

WALTER F. BROWN.