I received your information about
the use of the parts from The Free Library of Phila-
delphia and besides, I got a letter from Mr Cohn, of
the same Free Library, in which he explains what has
happened.

It seems to me that there is nothing for which Mr Cohn
can be blamed. They acted quite correctly and it must
be the Summy Company who abused a right which they
did not possess.

I had another experience about a year ago when Chavez
conducted my Five Orchestra Pieces and could not get the par
parts from the Summy Company. They agreed that I loan
my barts to Chavez. Neither at that time, nor later,
did the Summy Company tell me that they had no right
to act in this manner. I find one should sue the Summy
Company because they did me great damage in this re-
spect. They acted as your representative of my work
but not in my favour.

Now, I must also answer your own letters to me, about
the parts and score of the Five Orchestra Pieces.

At first, it is a great mistake of yours that they are
copyrighted in 1926, (or '22 or '23, as you say). The
✎ first edition – the original edition, of course, for orchest-
stra – was copyrighted in 1912. I have myself a copy of
it which says 1912 and you have overlooked the term
to renew this copyright. I must say that I hold you
responsible for the damage. What you say was copy-
righted in '22 or '23, was the arrangement for chamber
-orchestra, made by Mr Greissle. I have also a copy
of this.

I possess a set of parts which your father has given
to me for the first performance, which I conducted
myself in London with Sir Henry Wood's orchestra.

It was a gift from your father to me which I asked
him, because I always use my own parts when I con-
ducted in which I had made some changes and cor-
rections which I later sent to the firm to be in-
cluded in the new editions.

I would not give these parts away. They are my
possession and as long as I am not sure that there
exist other materials – corrected, then I would not
give them away. and printed in sufficient numbers
available for performances, I would not give them a-
way.

There is a possibility that the B.B.C. in London and
the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam possess a set of parts
of the work. But, as the success in New York was
so great there is the possibility that the work
will now be played in many other places and that three
materials would not be sufficient.

In order to prepare new materials, I would suggest
that either they are photostatically reproduced, but
at first corrected and all the improvements included;
or that, for instance in Vienna, new parts are wri-
ten on transparent paper, which might, perhaps, be
less expensive.

Another problem is the non-existence of the orchestra
scores. I myself possess only one copy of the new
version and I would be ready to send you a microfilm
of it for photostatic reproduction or new engraving.
This would be less expensive. I estimate that the
microfilming of the score would cost you no more than
5 or 6 dollars; making photostatic copies thereof.

I think you will have to reprint the score, and it
seems the most important question to acquire a new
copyright. I am ready to make a new version, a third
version which then can probable obtain a copyright.
I hope, nobody could then steal it from us. You
have to make this up with your lawyer. In this case,
I would try to simplify a little the orchestration
and make it a little easier for performances, by
omitting extra instruments.

I think I am entitled to demand that you restore my
rights. It's not my fault; if you in view of the
Hitler regime would have sent a sufficient number of scor[es]

and sets of parts to your American representatives,
you would have avoided my and your loss. At least
now everything must be done to protect me from further
losses.

I hope to hear soon from you and I hope you will find
a good way to satisfy my claims.