New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-10-21

IN Tho bs,.c,iic. ~ literary compositions such AZ
Popes and Cheserhelds though kept private ana Pr
vat etter, ON affairs Of business or domestic concerns
or ,,en az mere scts Of friendship Il very obvious
and ,hs IN the former only the hight Of property As
composer be SAID 70 exist
rTbe Vice Chancellor al this stage Of the argument
Interrupted the counsel for the defendant and asked Mr.
Hall counsel for Mr Hoyt Il he claimed the protection
o the Court on the ground that the letters published
were literary property IN which the authors possessed
copyrighl Mr. Hal said that his client claimed arigA
of tvoDfg and he did not think il Mastered whether
was right of property author chatie right in
the specific paper To which the Chancellor replied
the effect that the counsel for the defence need not far
ther argue that point that the letters in question
not literary compositions emitting their writers
elusive privilege authors and that the bill could not be
sustained on that ground
The counsel then continued and argued that the com
plain.n,'s bin clearly placed his claim upon that
ground that the exclusive right ~ multiply copies,
claimed for himself the three letters and NJ uti"
for Van Buren Butler and the rest AZ TO me one hupdftd
and f1ry six was the ut only 81 he author Of literary
composition in whom existed the copyright thai II mat
right did not exist the Court conceded the suit Is ~
an end--the injunction must be dissolved
III The counsel argued that in every reported in
the books IN which Injunction had been Issued 20 r.
strain a publication II has been upon the ground thai thc
complainant il possessed Of the exclusive nigh, 10 pub
isb which right has been invaded that the question
first a. ked IT, Has the complainant the night which has
i,eeu invaded and tho to this question affords
the esr and only test Of the night OF tho complainant 10
the Injunction prayed for II the complainant has NJ
that right matters not for which OF the various reasons
within the policy Of the law that right does not exist the
Injunction which is incident only 10 that rght cannot
be sustained To this point all the authorities were cited
IN which II believed the question mad arisen, and
which, it was urged, fully sustained the position.
eih II was commended farther, that no exclusive night
Of property in the letters restrained by the Injunction
could exist any for another reason other than that
they possessed none OF the attributes OF literary cOmpo
sitions-for this that upon examination OF these Jet,
ters II would be found that they Of such charac.
ter that it the policy OF the law 10 pro,ect-fy
cre dm0rdli-iug IA er tendency that Court OF Chan
Gerry would interfere for the protection Of compO
sitiOns Of such nature 10 restain their publication
ON behalf Of their composers fully established in the
case of Murray BenbOw, which was bill fled 70
restrain the publication Of a prated edition OF Byrons
"Cain"-and OF Byron Va. Dugdae.' which was bill
20 restrain the publication Of piraied edition Of Don
Juan' In both of these the Court refused 10 in
,oerc the ground that the zng character OF
the works in question was such mat the auhur could
have no exclusive right OF multiplying copies OF his pro
ductiOns
By an examination Of these letters the counsel argued
win be seen that they treat upon stock gambling ana
bottinr on eectOnsOf the best mode Of intriguing Tor
Office and how that Office should be used for TIE
uubic veal but subserve the basest and most wicked
persona and party purpOse-oi The easiest way OF rob
bling the widow and the orphan by artificial and cor
mn, unfolding of rotten bankrupt Banking lnstitn
tioand il will be- farther SEEN that in many instance
they are composed Of language and ephhets the most
basphemous the demoralzing tendency Of which can
not Tor an instant be doubted even 10y the most liberal
reader.
The Vice Chancellor here again Interrupted the Coun
e and asked If the letters Of the character by him
stated he contended that his CLINT had right publish
them to the world To this the Counsel replied that the
question was not the right OF the Defcndan, hut Of the
Complainant if the Complainant had the right the
he the letters constitute
but about one third OF the book This is the bane The
compiler has cndeayored by the composition Of the re-
naming ,wo.thirds 70 supply the antido,e.
This il very imperfect report of the argument made
by Mr. Stoushion, though we believe that the points
made are all correctly stated The argument certainly
exhibited much learning and ability and was clearly and
eloquenty delivered
Nh HALL for the complainant, replied at length, and
with much force and ingenuity attacked and endesvored
10 overthrow the various positions which had been taken
in support of the motion Mr. Hall spoke much of the
gross breach of and confidence and the violation OF
every law Of honor ofhoncsy and of decency in the pub
caon of the letters and argued that would be strange
indeed il the Court of Chsncery had power to inter
fero in such case His argument seemed tor the great
er part endeavOr to convince the Court that the prn'
cpe Of the decision in the Of "Wetmore vs. SEQ
veil ct ais not the true
The VICE CHANcELLoR's opinion was given on Wed
ncsday morning as we have stated He reviewed at
length the various cases both IN England and in this
country in which the right OF property in manuscript
letters had been discussed and which had settled the
law with reference thereto From these decisions his
Honor declared the following the legal deductions
ls That the writer of letters possessing the attributes
of literary compositions retained the exclusive right of
mulip ying copies Of Them notwithstanding his sending
Tho .sff faa flsr
letters AS such acquired special chstiel property IN
them in the material and words and ngures transcribed
ihereon-ihal this property gave him The night 10 read.
keep add the letters. for all the legitimate pur
poses designed by the Wrcrbut not TO publish mul
py copies and that the receiver of such letters might
be regarded the bace trustee Of the writer for the
protection OF his exclusive privilege OF publication
Applying these principles the at bar his Honor
declared that 10 his mind clear that Nj EIoy posses
sca me erousre efmuhPlyHs coPes cftle three frs
oricp and composed By him, and thai e rarous icrrs
and authors Of he remaining ln0s possessed Ae erelprc
right Of multiplying copies Of thar productions, and Of
course ,o,re eufed 70 he copyright ard that iloyt as
their bsee might maintain this suit for The
protection Of their right Ofcourse having thus applied
the principles OF law his Honor refused either dissolve
OF modify the Injunction.
50 very extraordinary did this conclusion seem 10 the
Counsel for the Defendant that It's close Mr. Stoughton
asked TIE Couit ne had correctly understood MS Honor
the day before declare distinctly that the bin could not
bee sustained the ground that The authors q the letters
were possessed oian exclusive right multiply copies Of
them literary oompositons-hat they did not possess
the attributes of such compositions in which the authors
could possess copyright To this, the Vice Chancellor
replied though with hesitation that he did say
and was of that opinion still To this Mr. SiouehIcn r.
Joined by ask ng his Honor If he would then mod
y the Injunction to apply TO the chsitel interest only
of Mr. Hoyt in the specific letters and paper copies OF
which were published in the Book Ills Honor said that
he saw no reason for disturbing the Injunction ii was
This is surely as we have before stated most extra
ordinary decision-noi only based upon most sin
gular roceding from the position assumed by the Vice
Chancellor the day before. but utterly inconsistent
with the principle OF his decision in the case of Wet
more vs.. Scovell.'
We incline not 70 indulge in any reflections which
naturally themselves 10 the mind 70 the pro
babe of this pspable Judicial Inconsistency
stronger But that this Inconsistency may
bc made apparent, and rest IN Insertion we W"
venture 10 quote some of the conclusions OF the Vice
Chancellor IN the OF "NctmOre W Scovell 81 AZ
From a close examination OF these think IL i
quite apparent that the Cour OF Chancery has assumed
Jurisdiction % restrain the publication of private letters
other principle and upon broader ground than
that OF copy right in literary productions or OF property