New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-04-26

the friehtful inexpediency Of giving to
trans Atlantic authors legal property IN
their own productions reprinted here. We
while holding its pictures OF the evii 20
flow from International Ccpyright entirely
fantastic. will not consent to put the case
wholly ON its expediency. We insist on
keeping the Moral element Of the question
foremost.
The Times now quotes part OF our
statement of the case, but onits that
sentence which bears most directly on the
perding issue. We sad:
mCbs,les Dickens or T. B. Macaulay writes a book,
fiy notifying the public that be desires and expects TO
be paid for his labor BY romsoer shall sec FL to possess
AiHss!f Of conf
And in that case we said that we did not
see how any one thus notified could delib-
erately choose to buy copy on which
nothing was paid to the author in prefer
ence to the authorized edition, yet escape
a consciousness of taking another mans
property unjustly. Of course, we know
that, in the absence of Copyright, it is prac-
ticallv impossible to respect the Rights OF
Authors but that Nation which has its
choice of affirming or denying those rights
and chooses the latter, does wilfully rob, or
we do not know what robbery means.
But hear The Times on this point:
1--WE declare, upon honor we are opposed to
IN u e dfuar Aiff n nj
upon whom it is practced. We are in fsver OF
stciiE9; wish The Tribsse to understand our
position in that respect very distinctly We think au-
thors should be paid for their books and we would
yery respectfully suggest to neighbor the proprety
of finding somebody who thinks otherwise, before he
throws himself into such unpleasant contortons about
Pckpockets Authors, we believe, are paid Tor Their
books everywhere. English authors have the right OF
monopolzing the entire English market, and American
authors have similar privilege in their own country
by way of compensation for their labors Those among
them who successful in their calling receive in this
way il pretty generally understood, very abundant
reward for their lsbors No one knowledge has
proposed TO rob them Of portion of their earnings
The only question raised has been upon the prOprcy OF
adding to each the rights and emOuments of the other
Il hss had relation solely to the ert to which authors
BY way of compensation for their labor, should be al
lowed TO levy upon the reading public The Trb-
insists that they have absolute and indefesble
right levy such taxes without any limitation what
| ever that they should have complete monopoly OF
their books throughout the world and for all time The
Times considers this claim good deal more sweeping
than justice requires, or the public good would allow
is this anything but dodge! That
The Times is opposed to stealing (as so
many people are to Slavery, Intemperance,
6c.) Sin the abstract" we perceive; but
that it abhors theft when it can be per-
| formed in q manner not deemed discredit-
able this paragraph does not convince US.
The fact that the British pay Macaulay or
Dickens for his works does not excuse us
from paying also if we use them. The
claim to compensation is founded on benefit
sought and received. If we don't want an
authors works, we are at perfect liberty to
let them alone; but if we see fit to use, we
ought to pay the demanded price, subject
only to such general limitations as the State
may see fit to prescribe, without overbear-
ing the absolute right of the laborer to his
hire. If an American reader ought to pay
Irving or Hawthorne for the privilege of
reading his works, he is under the same
moral obligation to pay Bulwer or Dickens.
The fact of the authors being on one side
or the other of q line does not affect his
right to payment, except in so far as it tends
to limit the sale of his book. Suppose
Dickens had been born in Florence, and
had there written all his books, we cannot
see how those circumstances could have
annulled or weakened his right to be paid
by those who chose to possess his books.
By The Iimes's rule a great author born
in little state or nation is entitled to a
far smaller recompense than little author
born in a great nation.
The talk of an authors being sal
lowed to Levy tares on the reading public"
and having "a complete monopoly" is in
our view most inconsistent with candor.
The Times levies no taxes" on those who
see fit to buy it in preference to other pa
pers, nor does it enjoy monopoly"
There is not word more abused and per-
verted in our language than this same
monopoly and this seldom more grossly
| than in the instance before US.
The Times asserts that authors who are
successful in their calling receive very
abundant reward for their labors" in the
absence of International Copyright. We
deny that this is the rule, though there are
instances of brilliant success, as there prob
ably would be under a system even more
vicious and partial than that which now
prevails. Mrs. Hemans lived and died in
straitened circumstances, when one cent