New-York daily tribune., 1854-09-05
IEGGETr ON COPYRIGHT.

LEGGETr ON COPYRIGHT.
Our readers will not need reststement of the
very recent difference between THE TRIBUNE
and The Erening Post respecting the for ner posi-
ton of Tie Post on the subject Of International
or Universal Copyright. Seeing in The Post of
last Saturday an Editorial broadly assuming the
ground respecting Copyright which THE TRIB-
UNE has always maintained, we rejoiced over 1t
not merely on account of its radical justice, but
because we understood The Post to have formerly
held very different position. But as personal
recollection of two or three articles in journal
fifteen or twenty years ago may easily be imper-
feet it occurred to us, reflection, that the ar
ticles we remembered as appearing in The Post
might have been uttered instead through The Plain
dealer, weekly Journal issued for some time i'm
medistely after his retirement from The Post by the
late William Leggett, a gentleman Of eminent
ability and marked originality of thought and
vgor of expression, under whose lead The Even
ing Post assumed the attitude OF radicssm on
many important subjects which it has ever since
maintained.
The Post promptly repelled our imputation of q
change of yiewson tie Copyright question, assert
ing not only that its ewn ground had ever been un-
changed, but that Mr.. Leggett stood likewise on
the broad platform Of the moral right of each
author to control and profit by the multiplication
of copies Of his works.
We have since found time TO look up The PLain-
dealer and now proceed to show The Post that
it's recollection of that gentlemans doctrines is
very wide of the truth.
In The PiainGeaier. No. 10, (Feb. 4, 1881, We
read from Mr. Leggett's pen as follows
"QUARRELs or PUBLIsHERs.-Two publishing
houses have fallen into dispute in the columns of
the daily papers in this City in regard to matter
which touches upon the principle of an International
copyright law, and OF the abstract moral right OF t-
erGry property in this country by the holders OF Brit
ish copyrights, in the absence Of any such law One
Of ihese houses Is branch OF publishing house IN
London, and the other American house, engaged
in the republication of English works. They have
both, nearly simultaneously issued an American re-
print of the work. the one printing i from
copy or duplicate OF the London stereotyped plates,
at dollar and quarter AID the other reprinting It
pew entirely, with some additional matter, at nifty
cents The claim set up by the first house Is that, IN
asmuch IL Is the proprietor Of the British copyright
with permission OF the author to avail itself OF the
American market it has exclusive moral right 10
the work. The argument OF the other party IS that
there moral right in the case that teraryprop-
ery the creation of the law and that a. there Is no
law to secure TO the authors propretors of works
published in other countries any right OF property IN
ihem la this the claim in question swithou foundation
IL is further argued that the claim, allowed, covers
the eutre ground contemplated by the proposed IN
ternat0ns arrangement and supersedes all necessity
of legislation treaty that every British and other
foreign publishing house may establish branch or
ageIcy country, and thus monopolze the busi-
ress of reprintlDg, drive own publishers out Of
a. fald eu.reiy and redufa of them
capitals already rretrisyably invested, TO abso-
ute beggary
at seems TO Us very clear that the American pub
Usher has the merits of the argument on his side and
that the pretensions Of the foreign house arrogant
IN the exiremest degae. The question is one to be
seed by legislation, on the grounds Of true national
e1pediency-On the fundamental principle OF good
govern ment The greatest good Of the creates, num-
der and no, by any mawkish appeals 10 the public
moral sense. Ii the Harpers reprint London book
to-day they liable to have il reprinted spon them
tomorrow, IN a cheaper form, by Dearborn, or any
body else; and they would never think OF complain
ing Of invasion Of their rights. The field Is hap
PLY open 10 the widest and freest competition; and
If London booksellers come into our market they
mast come exposed TO al the chances Of competition
ard rival enterprise. An English author cannot sell
or give them rights which he doe. not possess and If
they give him valuable consideration for nonen-
tty they do so at their own risk and in their own
wTorg. ANY conventional rules of courtesy and mu-
iuAl forbearanoe which publishers may establish
nent with which the public have nothing TO do.
SoIne OF publishers have. in numerous instances
paid British authors 8 considerable sum for manu-
script duplicate copy Of their works in advance Of
publication in England. But the sole advantage
which they thus acquire and all they claim is what
necessarily sppert.ns to the opportunity OF getting
first in 10 the market. British branchhouse estab-
li.bed here possesses the full benefit Of this facility
and has no foundation for the assertion of any further
right We cannot conceive that the mere circuuf-
stance of having come from Pcesdily or Grub-st
invests it with any peculiar pri Tileges or imnun-
;ies This seems TO the common sense view VI the
SUBJECT"
In his next issue, Up. l62) Mr. Legget. returns
to the charge and in the course Of his reply to al
able antagonist, says:
1--WE should shrink disnsyed from our corTespon-
dent ii we were not dong battle in what We yet
esteem Notwithstanding bis powerful and perspicuos
reasoning, tie rgii SIDE Of th< qlsstt0s.
And be goes on in the course Of the article to
say that
1--WE do not wish to deny to British authors right;
bat we desire that legal privilege, vhes re eo.tend
bas no toxndaf,o~ Natural rght and u prejudiea
TO the greatest good Of the greatest number shoald
be wholly annued in relation 70 al suthors, OF every
name and country. Oar posuon 70, Tat asthor' have
no natx-a risa 9 propufy 'n tAesr pub'shed works,