The Honorable JOHN KEE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC., Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: As president of Oxford University Press, Inc., a New York corporation wholly owned by the University of Oxford, I enclose 35 copies of a letter presenting the views of my company in regard to the provisions of the Habana Charter. I am an American-born citizen of the United States of America, and the letter represents also my personal views. I respectfully request that you make copies of the enclosed letter available to all members of your committee. DEAR MR. RADCLIFFE: I am writing to you because of your interest in international trade relations and because I feel that we have now an opportunity that may not come again for a good many years to benefit our industry and especially those of us who are concerned with the international trade in books. I refer, of course, to the ratification of the reciprocal agreements of the Habana Charter-particularly to article 20, which prohibits hidden tariffs and which potentially will repeal the more stringent restrictions of the manufacturing clause of the Copyright Act. At the present time books are one of the things discriminated against by "double" protection-"double jeopardy," a lawyer might call it. A book in the English language published outside the United States not only is subject to the duties and usual red tape of entry for any imports but except for a small number of copies and during a limited period, is denied protection under the copyright law. On the other hand, an American book can gain international copyright only by being published simultaneously in one of the Berne Convention countries and conforming to the specific laws of that country. In consequence many of our books are not legally protected against foreign pirating. There are some groups both within and without the publishing industry that are opposed to the idea of repealing the manufacturing clause or modifying it in any way. Their arguments seem to fall into two classes: (1) If there were no manufacturing restrictions, American publishers would send their work outside the country for manufacture by cheaper labor; (2) that foreign publishers would flood the country with their products, so that American labor and American publishers would not have the profit of manufacturing here. In regard to the first objection, for the most part and with ordinary books, our mass-production methods make it possible to produce more cheaply here than abroad. Except in the case of small printings, there is very little competition for the type of manufacturing our people want. American-produced books even in their most inexpensive editions are well made, well printed, and well designed. American printers and binders are skilled and efficient. Furthermore, American publishers are used to working in close cooperation with book manufacturers and, when possible, choose those with whom they can consult at short notice. The publishers' inevitable "rush" seasons would make the time involved in foreign production an insuperable deterrent. It is true that in the case of some art books a part of the work can be done more cheaply and more accurately abroad. A case in point is In Our Image, an illustrated edition of stories from the Bible. The engraving was done in England; but even though it was a book of large sales potentialties and the printings were extensive, it was found more economical to set the type, make the plates for the text of the book, and, in fact, do everything but the original engraving work in the United States. It is noteworthy that only by having the art work done abroad was it practical to have the book produced at all; thus American typesetters, printers, binders, and so on, gained by the procedure. The contention that if the present manufacturing clause were eliminated, British publishers would refuse to sell American rights on their popular books and would market their own editions through American wholesalers is to me equally falacious. In the first place, the English authors would not consider such an arrangement. They are convinced that they will receive a larger sale and hence more income by selling their American rights to an American publisher. Almost every American publisher can tell you of instances in which an English author has insisted that an American edition would have assured popuiarity for his book, even though that book had obviously but a small potential market here. As for the well-established author who already has an assured American market, the British publisher is not likely to hold the American rights. The English publishers, moreover, know full well that our wholesalers are not efficient book-distribution agencies; for one thing they are simply not geared to carry on the type of national advertising and publicity campaigns on which the initial success of popular books frequently rests. Foreign publishers do not have to be told that even though they might have the American rights of a book, they would enjoy more income by selling the rights to an American publisher than by attempting to deal through American wholesalers. This works both ways, of course. There have been times when the pound rate has been nearly double the present one and has created, therefore, a condition just the reverse of that of today, when an American book could be sent to England (duty free) and published there more cheaply than it could have been here.. Certainly no American publisher in such times ever gave any serious thought to handling his English sales through the English jobbers or wholesalers. The manufacturing clause and import duties work the greatest hardship on scholars and research workers. Scholarly books are usually expensive to produce and almost inevitably call for relatively small printings. Unless they can be produced in one place for the entire world market, cost becomes prohibitive. In this country most scholars have great difficulty in finding a publisher, unless they can subsidize their works or secure the support of one of the learned societies. The British scholar, on the other hand, must sacrifice his copyright if he allows his book to be sold in the United States, and then because of the high selling price, it is often available only in the larger libraries. In another respect also the manufacturing clause and import duties of the United States are especially disadvantageous to American authors: in virtually preventing British anthologists from giving adequate space to American authors. We ought to encourage them to use more of our material; instead, we actually discourage them because under our system of duties and the administrative regulations of the Treasury Department, the inclusion of as little as 3% percent of material by American authors raises the duty on any books exported to the United State by 50 percent. It is the manufacturing clause that prevents our joining the International Copyright Union, of which all other major nations of the world, except Russia, China, and certain Latin American countries, are members. Even though our authors attempt to secure international copyright by publication in a convention country, there have been cases in which the legality of such copyrights has been questioned. Some countries have taken the stand that copyright applies only to countries giving reciprocal protection to their citizens. In addition, many books of American authors do not have legal copyright in the Berne Convention countries because the publisher has failed to comply with all of the technicalities of the law. There is nothing to prevent foreign publishers reprinting without pay material of our authors not properly copyrighted in Berne Convention countries. That more legal pirating has not been done in the past is probably due to the same sort of sense of fair play and "moral copyright" American publishers often extend to the unprotected book imported into this country. But can we continue to expect other countries to give protection to our authors when we refuse to give legal protection to theirs? My belief is that the elimination of the manufacturing clause will benefit American book manufacturers, American labor, and American authors. A reader of an English book is a potential customer for an American book. By giving protection to all, the removal of the clause will encourage the importations of lesser known English authors, who may become popular here and increase the volume of book production in the United States, and vice versa. This is of the essence of international trade. The elimination of this clause will extend protection to British authors similar to that now given to American authors in Britain and will prevent the few unscrupulous publishers who now do so from taking material without permission and without payment. Action now will help our efforts to have restrictions against books removed all over the world and will encourage British and American publishers to work side by side in extending the universal use of the English language. Sincerely yours, Hon. JOHN KEE, HENRY Z. WALCK, President. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC., Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I wrote to you on April 26, 1950, and enclosed 35 copies of a letter presenting the view of my company in regard to the provisions of the Habana charter. I am now enclosing the original and 25 copies of a letter dated May 5, 1950, and addressed to you by Mr. Savoie Lottinvi.ie, president of the American Association of University Presses. It will be much appreciated if you will make copies of this available to members of your committee. I have been notified that at the convention of the American Association of University Presses held last week in Chapel Hill, N. C., there was an unanimous vote in favor of the stand, and I understand that copies of this resolution are being forwarded to you. Sincerely yours, HENRY Z. WALCK, President. Hon. JOHN KEE, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PRESSES, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: After consideration of the legislative changes which will be made necessary by the United States signature to the Habana charter, the executive committee of the Association of American University Presses is unanimous in favoring the elimination of the manufacturing clause in the United States Copyright Act. It is the feeling of the executive committee that, dealing as we do with scholarly publications, there should be the freest possible intellectual interchange between nations, particularly at the present time, when so large a burden rests upon the western democracies for the intellectual and political leadership of the world. Repeal of this clause, moreover, may very well enhance the circulation of American books of all kinds, not merely the scholarly, in countries overseas. By our unquestioned mastery of mass production techniques in printing and publishing, we are in a position to provide needed books in all quarters of the globe. Cordially yours, SAVOIE LOTTINVILLE. APRIL 27, 1950. STATEMENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION BY THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., ERIC JOHNSTON, PRESIDENT The Motion Picture Association of America, comprising the leading producers and distributors of films in the United States, strongly urges the Congress to approve the International Trade Organization. A crazy pattern of trading restrictions is threatening the recovery and progress of the democratic world. It's a dangerous pattern. If it continues, it may well become leeched to us all, sucking the lifeblood of free economies. The backwash of the war has left world trade in chaotic condition. The comparative freedom by which trade operated prior to the war has been wiped away by a host of new techniques and new practices that have resulted in the contraction instead of the expansion of international commerce. Our association has long believed that international trade must be on the basis of side-by-side pipelines. One outpouring; the other incoming. We have not only advocated this. We are doing something about it. Our association has recently started a new department to assist foreign producers in finding more outlets in America for their films. We want no false credit for altruism. We are guided-we believe-by enlightened self-interest. That self-interest is based on the conviction that we in America must buy as well as sell. Any device that offers promise of reversing today's trend toward dictation of international trade by government fiat merits our support. We feel the ITO offers the only practical hope there is in the world today to try to relieve the growing perils of the present confusion. But The limitations of the ITO are obvious. Its imperfections recognized. with its end objective most of us should agree without debate. For it is, in effect, a code of fair dealing-a potential guaranty against trade restrictions. It is a charter of fair-trading practices. ITO puts emphasis on free enterprise, competition, and freer trade, the indispensable ingredient of America's world leadership. The ITO is an American idea. It's a native product. Half a hundred other nations are withholding indorsement of it because they are waiting to see whether the United States-the hub of all the world trade today-will actually begin to practice what it has been preaching. If ITO fails-and it is certain to fail if we don't ratify the charter-there inevitably will be a multiplication of state trading monopolies, state barter systems, and more and more onerous restrictions on the flow of goods and services across boundary lines. This is economic warfare instead of economic peace. If this happens, we shall be the major loser. We have banked our multibillion-dollar world leadership program on the premise that we could help to oring about an expanding world economy. And trade is the red corpuscle of economic health. Hon. JOHN KEE, CALIFORNIA ALMOND GROWERS EXCHANGE, Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee, DEAR MR. KEE: The purpose of this letter is to register the general opposition of this organization to the ratification of the ITO Charter, hearings on which are now being held before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We furthermore request that our opposition become known through including this letter as a part of the hearing record. The California Almond Growers Exchange is a cooperative nonstock, nonprofit organization of almond growers which has as its fundamental purpose the processing and marketing of approximately 70 percent of the almonds produced in the State of California. The exchange membership is composed of over 4,000 of the 6,000 commercial almond producers in the State of California. We have not had the opportunity to make a detailed study of each of the various and sundry provisions of this complicated document and are not, therefore, in a position to authoritatively discuss the many ramifications involved. However, from a layman's observation, this document appears to accept every other country's embargoes, quotas, and currency regulations, while it condones the modest tariff protection still retained by a limited number of United States producers. It appears, also, that it would restrict or eliminate Department of Agriculture surplus control and stabilization program which is in effect for many farm commodities and that the charter would in general play havoc, particularly with many farm commodities. Our organization is furthermore diametrically opposed to the general principle of binding our tariff policies in an international organization and irrevocably committing the United States to a continued tariff-reduction policy and to any agreement that would make it impossible in the future to correct past mistakes that have been made in the trade-agreements program. In the interest of reserving to the efficient American producer that portion of the domestic market to which he is justly entitled, we urge that the House Foreign Affairs Committee take a negative action on the ITO Charter. Sincerely yours, D. R. BAILEY, General Manager. The Hon. JOHN KEE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE KEE: Enclosed please find a statement by the National Council of Jewish Women in support of United States approval of the International Trade Organization Charter which we would like included in the record of the committee hearings. Yours truly, Mrs. IRVING M. ENGEL, National President. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES APPROVAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION CHARTER FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. At its nineteenth triennial convention last October, the National Council of Jewish Women reaffirmed its support of United States foreign economic and trade policy designed to promote multilateral trade and remove the barriers to trade that now exist. Council's resolution states in part: "Whereas the United States requires an expanding world trade for the full utilization of its productive resources, which is necessary for both domestic and world economic progress; and * "Whereas the United States is in a position to give leadership toward the achievement of that objective. * [Therefore the National Council of Jewish Women urges] the United States Government to undertake international agreements designed to lower or remove trade barriers." The National Council of Jewish Women wishes to voice its belief that the speedy passage of the International Trade Organization Charter is a major step toward world prosperity, peace, and freedom. The ITO Charter recognizes that world trade has been restricted by narrow bilateral trading agreements made with regard only to the needs of the two countries concerned. The charter also recognizes that the low levels of employment and consequent low purchasing power existing in most of the world prevent the expansion of trade. The International Trade Organization would remedy these conditions by establishing multilateral trade agreements and by working to improve the economic condition and employment levels of member states. The United States has a special obligation to approve the International Trade Organization Charter since it was the United States which originally proposed the charter. Throughout the years of discussion and negotiation, the United States has been a leading exponent of the charter. The dominant economic position of the United States makes American approval or disapproval of the charter crucial to its existence. If the United States gives speedy approval to the charter there will be the best possible chance for the extensive development of multilateral trade relations throughout the world. If the United States fails to approve the charter there is almost no hope for its success. The National Council of Jewish Women believe that the International Trade Organization opens up vast possibilities for establishing the economic conditions necessary for peace and security, and supports the prompt ratification by Congress of the charter of the International Trade Organization. GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, April 27, 1950. Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, The Honorable JOHN KEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KEE: Attached is a statement of the General Federation of Women's Clubs in support of House Joint Resolution 236 on which hearings are now being held by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I shall greatly appreciate having this statement included in the record of hearings. Cordially yours, MRS. C. D. WRIGHT, Chairman, Legislation Department. |