New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-01-27
c,;las Harold an invasion Of the rights Of Lord
- We cannot puess.

Childe Harold IN iuvnS"" va s~' 'ie"'" VI A
pvronI We cannot guess.
One Of the ablest arguments against International
Copyrieht asserts that such writers as Bulwer'
Dickens, Thackersy, borrow their ideas from the
great thinkers and philosophers of their own and
former ages, and have no just property therein.
This, if good at all, is good, not against Interna-
tional Copyright, bat in bar Of the claim of certain
persons to share its advantages No matter how
stringent the law it is clear that plea of piazza
rism, if made cut, would constitute valid deiense.
A thief cannot maintain an action for the recovery
Of property which he is known to have stolen, but
of which third party has taken possession. We
have no manner Of doubt that "Ollver Twist or
Little Dorrit" il as truly and absolutely the
production of Charles Dickens as 1.-The Wealth
OF Nations" was that of Adam Smith; but, II the
contrary were established, it would make nothing
against the propriety and justice of International
Copyright.
Inventions are, 10 considerable extent, products
Of their time. We cannot doubt that Steamboats,
would have been constructed though neither Fitch
nor Fulton had ever been born, and that the Elec-
tric Telegraph would have flashed intelligence from
country to country though there had never been q
Morse, q Balm, nor House But could We have
had Christabe without Coleridge, Sartor Resartus
without CARLYLE Clearly not and herein is the
proof that the Authors right is clearer and stronger
than that of the Inventor. The latter anticipates;
the former ere ates.
Why, then, should Nations limit the right OF an
Author to control and profit by the sale of his
works. Why should not Shakespeare or Milton
have bequeathed the right to reprint his works to
his heirs, as indubitaby and Unfortunately as Miles
Standish or Daniel Boone might bequeath to his
heirs the homestead which he hewed out of the
wilderness and defended against the hostile saw
ages If there be good reason why despotc,
non-educating State should limit the Authors right
of property in his work we are ignorant of it. But
our Government may fairly say to the Author,
whether domestic or foreign: eve have
"devOted two sections in every township of our
Public Lands to the Education Of our People,
WHEREBY the demand for your works has been
Immensely extended. We claim in return the
"rght to limit and terminate your Copyright"
This it does; but we see not why this plea should
avail as against foreign any further than against
native Authors.
We trust that Congress or the Treaty-makng
department of our Government will approach this
subject in no higgling, quibbling picayune spirit.
1.-THE laborer is worthy of his hires" and it is at
once polite and just to pay it in full. If any man
wants 70 read the works of a contemporary, yet
don't want to help pay that contemporary for
writing them, he needs a series of short and easy
lessons in calculation and enforcement of
the text "ThOu shalt not steal" And,
now that We have succeeded, by an ap-
plicnton of the argumentum od hominem, in con-
verting the Harpers to the side of International
Copyright, we presume there are few or none left
on the other side unless they are to be found
among those who hold that all property is Rob-
berry" If there be any property right clearer
than that of the Author to his work, we have not
yet discovered it.