The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-06-25
THE DICKENS CONTROVERSY.

The Importance Of an international oopvrigbt
from a sharp and unpleasant controversy be-
tween certain American publishing firms about
the reprinting OF Mr.. Charles Dickens novels.
The quarrel seems 10 have sprung out of a
letter from the author to Messrs Ticknor q
Fields in which appears this sentenoe;-"In
years Is, unless IL bears your Imprint utterly
worthless and profltless to me-" Messrs. Peter
son " brothers, of Philadelphia, reply to this
statement that Mr. Dickens has received at
various times from Harper q Brothers $4,000
they have purchased nom the Harpers tie Ste.
reotype plates and goodwill OF those editions
and have also bought OF Carey, Lea Blan-
chard, Stringer Townsend, and other firms
the plates of several earlier works; and that,
consequently, they are by the customs and
fishers in America Of the works of Charles
Dickens" In view of these facts Mr.. Dickens
letter is characterized as "ungenerous il not
dishonest" We do not think the letter very
pleasant in tone, or very happily expressed;
the writer expressly alludes to the trans lotion
with the Harpers, and generous there is no rea-
son why IL should be. MIR. Dickens meaning is
the only publishers who pay him a share OF the
profits on the sale of his works in America. II
II is not in recognition of his rights as an
author. but as an equivalent for certain speci-
fled service, that is TO say, for his furnishing
copy of his books to them sooner than to any
body else. The Boston firm say in effect to Mr.
Dickens:-"We make money or the product of
your brain, and IL is only honest that you should
have part of It," The Petersons say:-"Some.
body is sure TO take your book; let US take it
10 pretend that payment like this is In the
nature of q copyright, and that Mr. Dickens,
having sold the advance sheets of book to one
house, has no right to consent to Its subsequent
publication by another, is simply absurd
SO much for the authors share in the contro-
versy. AS between the Messrs Peterson and
Messrs. Ticknor & Fields, the quarrel resolves
itself into this:-What is the courtesy of the
trade, and how far is that courtesy binding
rule? There is a sort of tacit understanding
among publishers that when one firm has
bought advance sheets of foreign book, no
other firm shall reprint it; and that the pub
fishing house which first introduces an English
speak, makes his popularity in this country.
shall have the exclusive privilege of printing
that authors later works. But no rights" to
separate works acquired under that hlmsy
courtesy of the trade" have ever been held TO
debar firm from manufacturing q complete
edition of the writings OF a popular standard
author; and 1t would be public misfortune If
any such understanding should obtain general
acceptance.
In point of fact, however, the courtesy of the
trade has no foundation in equity or politeness;
1t is nothing more than the law Of retaliation.
are afraid of each other says to b, "Ilyou
interfere with my Dickens, 1 will run foul OF
your Thackeray; let me devour my prey in
peace, and you may devour yours.T So with
the books of second and third rate authors
some such compact as this, some taclt partition
treaty, has usually been kept. When very
popular writer's were in question. and there
was lively competition for the spoils, it has
never been kept at ALL Neither Dickens, nor
Thackeray, nor Bulwer, nor Macaulay, nor any
other great light of English literature, has ever
been recognized as the property of any parLicu-
lar American publisher. Tlcknor g. Fields have
been looked upon as the sole legitimate re-
printers of Tennyson, not because they were
first in the field, but because they paid part of
their profits TO the author. That gives them a
right in equity over those who pay nothing,
though 1t may not in law nor in the muddle
known as the courtesy CODE"
1t would be better for all parties If that code
were swept from existence, and the honest plan
of paying q percentage to the author were
adopted In It's stead. Then we should have no
more disputes about authorized" editions, no
more scrambling to push books hastily printed,
carelessly bound, and half corrected into the
market; and If the number of English reprtn Is
were in consequences considerably reduced. we
are by no means sure that the public would
suffer from the reduction.-N Y Tribune Of This
mo