The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-09-16
Prospect or = Dramatic Copyright.

duce of his own brains. 1t may appear singu-
lar that, in a country where Industry and in
telligence are the best kind of property, those
of SO deserving class Of individuals as wri-
tiers for the stage should be unprotected
against thieves. Such ia the case, however. In
the present state of the law the author of
dramatic work is held to have no such right of
property therein as can hinder any manager
from producing and performing it without SO
much as a "thank YOU to the author. II Mr..
Everett or Mr.. Bancroft were to write first
class drama and bring it out at the Broadway,
Mr.. Burton Mr.. Wallack, and every country
manager from Portland to New Orleans might
play il night after night without paying one
cent for the right Of doing SO. To say that
they might is to imply that they would Every
piece produced at Boston, Philadelphia or
here that is worth prating is pirated, and
played all over the country; if an author com
plains, ne is regarded as greenhorn and
laughed at
The anomaly can be easily traced to its ORR
gin. When the people Of this country, acting
Ivy their representatives, nearly three quar-
tiers Of century ago, secured to inventors and
authors patent rights and copyrights in their
works, the old Puritan prejudice against thea
tres prevented the extension Of the principle
to dramatic performances. At that time, the
dramatic interest was weak and young In
large section of the country, play-acting was
still contraband. Even in the more liberal CT
ties, the patronage extended to theatricals was
not large enough to invest the stage with any
national Importance. So it fell out, that when
the rights of authors and inventors were dis
cussed, no one thought Of writer's for the stage,
save one or two who were quickly ovcrpower-
ed by the Puritans. If the theatre was an in
yention Of the devil, as the men Of Hartford
and Providence were convinced, then the less
Of it the better; rather discourage than foster
dramatic literature. AS they thought, so they
acted. While the inventor Of shoc-string
was-and justly, too-secured in possession of
The right of furnishing the country with all
similar shoe-strings for given number of
years, 50 as to reap the full fruit Of his labor,
the author Of comedy as good as Moliere's
drama like Shakspeare's, or vaudeville like
Scribe's was refused any right Of property
therein at all. His work became common pro-
perty, to which any man who chose might
help himself. That it cost him severe and
protracted labor, that it evinced rare imagi-
nation, that it added to the public knowledge
Of human nature, that it was calculated to rem
der vice ridiculous, that it afforded pleasing
diversion to nightly audiences, the early legis-
lators of this country neither knew nor cared;
fhai uhn1 viz I'm f1o tboo
summed up in the sentence that it was immo-
raj, and ought not to be encouraged.
Without intending to cast slur on class
Of men who have had no rivals in history, it
may safely be said that the opinion of the
founders Of the republic respecting the drama
is not that of the American people to-day.
No one but few clergymen, and very old per-
sons living in retired places, regards the thea
ire as an immoral institution. There are
fathers who object to their children frequent
ing theatres, because they believe there are
better places to frequent and there are many
individuals, who go rarely to theatres, because
they find more congenial and useful occupa-
lions at home. But no class Of society that is
worth considering view the stage as the old
Puritans did. No one-with any claim to at
tcntiOn or respect-would advocate the eXclu-
sion Of actors from burial grounds or would
refuse to associate with an actor whose social
habits were uneyceptionablc or would deem
i'll Of lady because she went to the theatre
or would set down all actresses as women of
immoral life. These old fallacies have been
exploded long since even Hartford has begun
10 laugh at them. Is it not time to drop that
other old fallacy-whch grew out of the con-
tempt in which the stage was held-that the
dramatic author was an outcast whom il was
lawful TO waylay, rob- and strip?
The drama is one of the most important and
highly priced branches of all foreign ltera-
lures. Certainly no British writer represents
the language SO thoroughly and SO universally
as Shakespeare. Take Racine, Corneille, Vol
taire and Moliere from the French and they
have no old school poetry worth reading.
Take the plays Of Leasing, Schiller and others
from the Germans, and they lose more than
their literature can spare. So Of the Spanish
and Italian. In every review of their national
literatures, the drama must occupy onc-third OF
the whole space, and absorb more than half
the interest bestowed on the whole. Now. we
have no dramatic literature and can have none.
So long as the present defective law endures.
No man can afford to write plays which every
shall be at liberty to steal after the first
performance No manager can afford to give
decent sum for a manuscript comedy, which
the rival house over the way shall be at liberty
TO pirate the very week after it is produced.
We should have no books, if there were no
copyright to secure to authors pittance from
their sale: and certainly we shall have no
drama, until we establish copyright for the
stage.
We shall not argue here that it is desirable
that we should have a national drama. There
may be persons who do not think 50 but we
cannot, life being short, attempt to convince
them. We address ourselves to the thinking
&C A ,a nt,bn kol; -