The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-04


Routledge VS.. Low, to which we called atten-
tion in its earlier stages. The facts were that
MessTs. Low purchased the MS. Of book
called Haunted Hearts," written by an Ame-
rioan authoress, a citizen Of the United States,
who, in pursuance of her contract with Messrs.
Low, went to Canada for short time, 80 as to
be bodily present within British territory upon
the day her work was first published in Eng
land by Messrs. Low. They made 1t part of
their contract that the authoress should be 80
present, in Difference to the Judgment of the
House of Lords given in the Sonndmbuia case,
Jefferys vs.. Boosey, which destroyed that very
valuable copyright upon the painfully
narrow ground that, because the alien
author of that opera was not bodily
present in England when his work
was first published there, no British copyright
existed in the opera. That decision was upon
the law as it existed under the old Copyright
act of Anne, but which was repealed by the
Copyright Amendment act of 1872 But, re-
turning to the facts of Routledge VS.. Low,
Messrs. Low having published the work in
question in 1864 at l6s., Messrs. Routledge
some time afterwards issued an impression of
it at 2s. They contended that Msssrs. Low
could not have acquired copyright in a work
written by an alien between whose country
and our own no international copyright sub
sists." Thereupon Messrs. Low filed their
bill in Chancery against Messrs. Routledge,
the plaintiffs had valid British copyright in
the work. That decision was affirmed upon
appeal to the Lords Justices; whereupon the
defendants again appealed to the House of
Lords, who unanimously confirmed Messrs.
Lows title to the copyright. Upon that
point, inasmuch as the authoress was in
Canada when her work was first published
here, there appears never to have been any
reasonable doubt as to the result.
But during the argument the previous deci-
sion Of the Lords in Jetfreys vs.. Boosey was
cited and discussed. Then came the question,
whatever the law might have been under the
act of Anne, where work of which an alien
friend is the author has been first published
in England since 1912, was it requisite he
should be bodily present in British territory
upon the day of first publication We rejoice
to say it has been most distinctly held by two
noble Lords, in Routledge VS.. Low, that he
need not be 80 present. Upon this point,
which is OF especial consequence to alien
composers and British publishers, the then
Lord Chancellor Lord Cairns, said-"My
Lords, l COME now to the most important
question for determination in the present case
To whom as the composer or author of work
is the protection of copyright given Y-to a
native-b born subject of the Crown, to an alien
friend sojourning in the United Kingdom, to
an alien sojourning in British colony, or
to an alien friend residing wholly abroad
MY LOrQS, IN my opinion Inc prOIocIlpu l5
given to every author who first publishes his
work in the United Kingdom, wheresoever that
| author may be resident, or OF whatever
| State he may be the subject. The intention
| of the act is to obtain benefit for the people
| of this country by the publication to them of
works Of learning, Of utility, of amusement.
| This benefit is obtained, in the opinion of the
Legislature, by Offering certain amount of
| protection to the author, thereby inducing
| him to publish his work here. This is, or
| may be, q benefit to the author; but it is
| benefit given, not for the sake of the author
| of the work, but for the sake of those to
| whom the work is communicated. The aim of
| the Legislature is to increase the common
stock of the literature of the country; and if
| that stock can be increased by the publication
| for the first time of a new and valuable work
| composed by an alien, who never has been in
the country see nothing in the wording of
| the act which prevents, nothing in the
| policy of the act which should prevent, and
everything in the professed object of the act,
and in its wide and general provisions, which
| should entitle such a person to the protection
of the act, in return and compensation for the
addition he has made to the literature of the
| country. My Lords, | am glad to be able to
| entertain no doubt that a construction of the
act 80 consistent with a wise and liberal policy
| is the proper construction to be placed upon
it. Accepting the decision of this House in
| Joffreys VS.. Boosey as to the construction of
the statute of Anne, it is, think, impossible
not to see that the present statute would be
incompatible with policy so narrow as that
| expressed in the statute of Anne"
In the same case, Lord Westbury in the
course of his Judgment also said:-"The act
of 1842 appears to have been dictated by a
wise and liberal spirit, and in the same spirit
it should be interpreted, adhering, of course,
to the settled rules of legal construction. The
| preamble u.s. in my opinion, quite inconsistent
| with the conclusion that the protection given
by the statute was intended to be confined to
the works of British authors. On the con-
| trary, it seems to contain an intimation to
men Of learning in every country to make the
| United Kingdom the first place of publication
| of their works. and an extended term of copy
right throughout the whole of the British
dominion is the reward of their 80 doing. So
interpreted and applied, the act is auxiliary
to the advancement of learning in this coun-
try. The real condition of obtaining ito ad-
vantages is the first publication by the author
of his work in the United Kingdom. Nothing
renders necessary his bodily presence here at
the time, and find it impossible to discover
any reasen why it should be required, or
what it can add to the merit of the first publi-
cation. By the common law of England the
alien friend, though remaining abroad,
may acquire and hold in England
all kinds of pure personal property,
and when statute is passed which
creates or gives peculiar protection to
particular kind of property which it declares
shall be deemed personal property, and does
not exclude the alien, why is hs to be deprived
of his ordinary right of possessing such pro-
perty, or being entitled to such protection