Mr. OGILVIE. That is subject to the construction of the courts. We all know what that means. Mr. CURRIER. No; it puts the burden of proof on the Government to show it beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. OGILVIE. The proof of the perjury should also be beyond a reasonable doubt and the one guilty of it should be equally punished. Mr. CHANEY. If he did it unwittingly it would not be willful, you know. Mr. OGILVIE. It is impossible for a publisher to make an "unwitting" affidavit of that sort. The publisher knows where the article that he is publishing is manufactured. I have been a publisher for a great many years, and I know where the articles that I am turning out are manufactured. It is possible for him to make an affidavit that is literally and absolutely true in regard to the place of manufacture of every article that he produces. Senator MALLORY. Where he willfully makes a false affidavit it is equivalent to perjury, and the penalty for that is generally imprisonment in the penitentiary. Mr. OGILVIE. Then why change the penalty in this law? It certainly limits his liability under this act. Mr. CURRIER. There is not any liability at all. No affidavit is required. There is no penalty for a false statement at all under the law now. Mr. OGILVIE. Not as it is at present, but as this new law proposes it there is a liability. Mr. CURRIER. This was a bill that passed the House last winter and was not reached in the Senate. Mr. OGILVIE. Well, the facts are here. The CHAIRMAN. It was reported favorably by the Senate committee. Mr. CURRIER. Yes; and not reached. Mr. OGILVIE. Section 19, the last portion of that section, reads: _And provided further_, That should such subsisting copyright have been assigned, or a license granted therein for publication upon payment of royalty, the copyright shall be renewed and extended only in case the assignee or licensee shall join in the application for such renewal and extension. Mr. PUTNAM. That provides for the extension of the existing copyright for an additional term. Mr. CHANEY. What is your suggestion on that? Mr. OGILVIE. That the gentlemen who framed this bill, and who wished to let themselves out of the penitentiary for committing perjury, would be likely to make a very liberal arrangement with the author, or his widow or children, if it was within his power to refuse to consent to a renewal of a copyright. He may have been paying a royalty of 20 per cent, and when the time came for securing a renewal of the copyright he would be likely to say, "I will give you 1 per cent, and if you do not agree to that I will not join the request for an extension of the copyright." I think that is wholly beyond the province of this act. Mr. CHANEY. Whose consent should be required?