The New York herald., 1874-12-08

the composition OF an alien autnor, which had
been written for British actress, and per-
formed upon British stage. appears to have
been assigned to the plaintiff, an alien. who came
to she United States for the sole purpose
Of producing II, having obtained, In addition to
vhe assignment 'rcense TO perform the same In
the United States for the term OF nve years."
Meantime however, the publisher De Witt. before
mentioned, had procured and printed "Mary
Warner" a. he had previously procured and
printed "Play." and had sold copy thereof TO the
defendant, Aiken, the proprietor OF theatre In
the city OF Chicago, who had caused II TO be pub.
licly performed therein. Held that Its production
by Aiken was an infringement upon the common
law right OF the assignee to his literary property.
Now the effect OF these two decisions. taken TO-
Rether-snce, according to the nrst the compost.
ton cannot be printed and sold. and, according to
the second, IL cannot be represented on a stage
without its proprletors permisston-s, undoubt-
eoly "thar an alien dramatic author IN this coun-
try receives precisely the same protection IN MS
literary property as the citizen receives IN hs."
which was the drst proposition. Now. as 10 the
second.
In 1860 was decloed the case Of Keene VS..
case Of the comedy @ 5Si "our AMERICAN COUSIN.
originally composed las were the others) IN Lon
upon It's beng assigned to MISS Laura Keene she.
unfortunately or nerseli. proceeded 70 copy
signt the manuscrpt play, under % the ACT % OF Con.
proving a success other anG rival establishments
10 Miss Keene's managed to procure and produce
versions OF the comedy, which establishments sne
brought various suits 10 enjoin, among them being
tne one entlted ABOVE.
as IN tne cases We have Just been examininG--cx-
cept that Miss Keene complied with the copyrlgnt
not-the Court held that resident ahen could
not, not copyright the works q . non.resldent
not restrain any one who wished to do
so from. performing the comedy 'Our American
she had paid. This decision mas never been re-
versed and IS law to-day. And this seems TO prove
that oy ne2ecling to comply with our cop,rlgnt
laws ne H. e. the aen author, or his assignee who
STANDS IN mis- place., can actually enjoy greater
privileges Of protection IN his LITERARY property
was the second proposition.
Whatever may De thought OF this lay as law
ana am at loss TO see how 1t could well be other
wise than as II is-and whatever may be thought
OF our statues OF copyright land, except the
Is not surprising that the above paradoxical and
anomalous condition OF things-namey, law
what il denies TO the citizen except upon his COM
pliance with certain formula anu upon payment
Iy hlm Of 9 certain lee, and 9 law which re ewards
condition ol things arising, be II remembered,
from the construction OF those statutes. by appl,
cation OF princpes OF common lawl, should lead
stultifcation."
too IN supposing that the remedy for this state Of
things lies with congress, though what that
Tnat remedy hes, It seems to me, In the enact
ment BY CONGRESS Of an international copyrignt
or, rather uor TINS is the shape in which the sub
Ject Will PROBABLY come upl, IN sue appointment
by Congress OF commissioners to meet comrnls-
sioners TO oe appointed by the Grown OF Great
right. And 1t 10 difficult to see how any other
legislation would meet the case.
And, indeed, why there should not be an inter-
national copyright between the two great Eng
lish speaking nations, as well as between an Eng.
lish and a French speaking or an English and
German speaking nation, II Is dniculs 10 see. Tne
opposition to such an acs appears to arse from
no:nng more than lancied temporary and com
ency at al, an expedcncy only TO few book
sellers and not to the country al large, think
shall be able TO show further on IN this letter.
winch, TO say the least, Is poor ground Tor q ma
tlonal law. And moreover. upon examination,
tnlnk @ u Wlil Turn OUT 70 De iancitd and not
question II any argument has ever been waged
right, either IN lss7 when Henry Clay oIi there.
for was Killed In the senate. or IN 1873, when the
Ject to tnat body, which IS not equally an argu-
ment against any copyright at all either local or
Mr. Morrin's report is, perhaps the most amoi-
tious attempt in the history OF legislation upon
tins subject to defend. upon constitutional and
legal grounds, the nOn-exlsLence OF an lntcrna-
tlonal copyright. The argument OF that report IS
divided into two parts. FIRST. into an attempt TO
snow that neither the letter nor the spirit OF the
clause In the constitution section g. subds. g. 1S).
which gives to congress power to pass laws OF
copyright tneir works as EXISTING at all, ex-
cepl IN so lar as subsequently to tnat clause and
the Congress snail thereafter grant them that
right That IS to say, that, as it could not well
re consess 1s 70 esioS sS. me nes
yet been bestowed by that Congress,
the constitution did not recognize the
argues Mr.. Morrill, II the constitution had, IN
spirit, recognized the natural and absolute rights
OF an author In his works 1t would never have at
tempted to secure to HIM quallfed and limited
right IN them. and So II Congress has not seen ft
TO grant copyright TO Ger ain aens the constitu-
ton cannot be said to recognize their right to
sucn copyright.
argument land 1t seems to bel then, while It's cir
cumlerential reasoning IS very ingenious. It Is.
peeso on as to e say o me sasnoE T
was discussed and exhausted in the two
great, causes ceieores OF Millar VS.. Taylor
occupied the attention OF the English House
OF Lords and OF the authors and publishers OF
the English speaking worlu for the better part
OF tive years-ir0m 1859 to l764-ln whose consid-
Grafton sat Lord Mansnela Yates. DE Gray, Wllles
and Aston, in the discussion OF wnlcn Lord Cam.
reference at this day would almost seem super.
nuous Wonid seen 70 oe rasaer a.e IN the dy TO
other property; for, although the last men toned
case OF Donaldson VS.. Beckett may be considered
as reversing the former and OF establishing the
superiority or copyright 10 common law right, It
can hardly be maintained chat because an author
that the LAY NAV more completely and fully pro-
tect the remainder he has no natural rights at all.
Ine Ilgnt VI ual " tne ouSprlng OF MS own
brain Is natural and moral right, secured TO
him oy the unwrltten law; and II the constlt nton
oil The United States, or any otner
written law, attempts to aorogate natural and
moral right AID unwrltteD law Except as a pun
ishmcnt Tor crme-tnat written law, Whatever It
IS. and oy whomsoever enacted, Is In just so Tar
null and void. But IT Is hardly to be supposed
That the constitution does ans such thing. The
second portion Of Mr. Morrills argument Is TO the
inexprdiency OF an international copyright, into
winch seems hardly necessary to enter. since
what Is tnexpedlent one day may be expedient
the next IL Is AZ tne best, only temporary and
transitory aspect Of the case, which is OF course,
utterly powrress to affect the question OF It's
morality or It's righteousness. Sti! It might pe
well 70 examine even that aspect.
"A table OF prices Is appended 10 the report and
the lact Is auned 10 among other similar ones, AZ
shown therein, that "the average price OF seventy.
i've English books 10: which the names are given,
Is 50 ~, while the average price OF the American
reprint OF the same book s only 81 &c.