The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-04-01
COPYRIGHT AND THE PUBLIC PRESS

rhe Washington correspondent of the Baltimore Sun
on in his letter of tho 2sth ultimo referring to the
opinions of the judges Of the Supreme Court says
The dissenting opinions Of Justices Mclean and Curtis
have been spread the public through the
of Boston and New York, and before they fled They
were obtained from the clerks office As the reporter OF
the court is entitled to copyright, 1t will be violation Of
that right the opinions In full in the newspapers
1t certain therefore, that the opinion of the court as
presented by Chief Justice fancy and Justice Nelson will
reach public through the popular and the impress
sion made by the publication Of the dissenting
opinions will not be fully counteracted."
We have heretofore expressed regret at the coure
pursued by Justices Mclean and Curtis in volunteering
yielding to what consider the gross improperly OF
spreading their opinions in the Scott before the people,
80 foresa The public mind ny views of the
case greatly the prejudice of their brethren upon the
psnrn. IL the views OF the suns correspondent are
correct, the depth Of the evil has not been fathomed.
He supposes that the dissenting opinions, having been
given by their authors before filing them, be law
fully copied length by the press while those Of the
ority which fled with the clerk previous to such pub
ca,ion be published because the reporter has
copyright in them. If this Is the law then manifest.
evasion has been prac,ised upon the reporter we'll
the public by sort of clandesne publication Of the dis
cents Justices Mclean and Curtis cunnngly contrived
to promote the interests the decaying faction o.!
disun,onsts. Whether this extraordinary advantage
was intended or not by those judges, land we do
not like beeverr by those to whose necessities
they have practically mnisered, think the object
will utterly fail We hold it to be conttutonally and
legally true the opinions of the judges Of the Supreme
Court public property, aud may be freely copied and
printed in any form by any who chooses TO do The
constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws to promote
the progress of science by securing to authors the exclusive
right of their respective writings. law going beyond
that would be null and void But there is no law author
zing the copyghtng, by one person, OF the writings Of
another. From the time Of the controversy between
WHEATON Peters lin ls34) concerning the publication
of the opinions Of the court by the latter though
first reported by the former ii has been the settled law
that judicial opinions written oa and fled public
property, open TO the use Of ALL Judge Curtis in his D-
gest Of the Decisions Of the Supreme Court says The
porter of this court have copyright in the written
opinions delivered by the couN The opinion OF court
in that case given by Judge McLeip in which he said
1t may be proper to remark that the court
mously of opinion that reporter has have, any
copyright in the written opinions delivered this court
and that judges thereof confer any reporter
any such right" .sn
These views hare been uniformly acted upon since the
date Of that opinion, and we presume Judge Curtis
did go in his publication of the opinions found in
the reports from Dallas to Howard, inclusive. The
porter whoever publishes the opinions Of courts may
copyright bis statement of the case arguments of
se head poes and whatever else he may prepare. Con-
gress itself confer upon him the exclusive right
of using the writings Of another Itwoud be grossly
just confer upon reporter, any else, the txclu
sve right to another mana written productions This
would even exclude the author himself No such law has