If for any reason it should seem wiser to make the term dependent in its length upon the death of an author, then the continuance of the copyright should depend upon definite evidence being filed in the copyright office showing positively the date of death. At the end of section 18, page 15, line 8, after "name," the words "_Provided_, That in such published work the notice of copyright be given as required in this act" should be inserted. Section 19 should, in my opinion, be canceled. It is retroactive in its character. Definite contracts have been entered into between authors and the public with respect to matters already copyrighted, and it would impair the obligations of those contracts to provide any renewal or extension of such copyrights. It has already been agreed between such authors and the public at what time their copyrighted works shall pass into the public domain. Recurring to lines 3 and 4 of page 15, I submit that they should be canceled, so that the copyright shall extend for a definite number of years after the date of original entry. There seems to be no sound reason for giving an author a longer copyright, longer by a year, if he makes his entry on the 2d of January, than another author will have who enters his copyright on the 30th of December preceding. Section 21 should be canceled, as it gives, in effect, copyright privileges where the conditions precedent required by this act have not been performed. Section 22, line 14, is too broadly worded for the benefit of the authors of this bill, and the word "reproduction" should be canceled and the words "copy or representation" should be inserted. In lines 22 and 23 the words "such fraudulent" and the rest of the section should be canceled, and the words "copies which are infringements is hereby prohibited." Section 23, paragraph (b), should be canceled and made to read: "(b) To pay to the copyright proprietor damages for the infringement." As the paragraph now reads, it gives double damages. The proprietor should receive damages which will be judicially ascertained in the ordinary way, either by estimating the profits which the infringer has made, or by estimating the damages or loss which the proprietor has suffered. If there is no actual damage it should not be provided that $250 should be recovered, and if the damages are greater than $5,000 there is no sound reason for limiting them to the latter sum. For the same reasons lines 18 to 24 on page 17, and lines 1 to 7 on page 18, should be canceled. Paragraph (c) on page 18 should be amended by striking out the word "alleged", in line 10, and inserting "shown to the satisfaction of the court."