New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-25

labOri0us
ful books Of lasting benefit ken the liberty Of printing,
mankind, il IL expedient reprEtng and publishing,
tOres,ct. for certain times books and other writings
and under certain cond without the consent OF the
S: The st s S s%sSG books or apa 2rs to
joyedof repntug and pub and too often to the ruin of
fishing oil such works by them and their fsiles for
publication have become preventing therefore such
common property he it en- practices Tor the inte NC
make no comment but invite men to inspect
this intelligenty. you inspect an octopus. Ewes
and no eyes have ruled the roost in copyright quite
long enough.
7. Law cases. 4. "Roper agt. streater,'
Kings Bench. Alias Copyright, or Literary Prop
erty. agt Monopoly. Judgment of the whole Bench
for Copyright at law against Monopoly and Preroga-
tive.
g. Roper agt. Streater" House of Lords. The
Lords admitted perpetual copyright at law. but
declared the King had paymas.ers claim to Judge
Crokes reports because he paid the judges and
quired a copyright in their decisions. Thus they
smugged him in as proprietor at common tdW. latess
theory of forfeiture by publication occurred 20
the mind of any judge either in the Kings Bench or
the House of Lords.
C-The injunctions soon after the statute. Here
there are two things to he considered. First:
Judge does not roll out of his cradle on to the wool
sack. Sir Joseph Jekyl was ripe lawyer in 100,
when Roper agt Streater" tried in the Lords
He saw the common-aw right long before the stat
ute and he went by il after the statute, and against
the literal words of the statute for they afhx
term aud could never suggest new perpetual right
10 any LAWYERS mind. In 1875 he restrained
piracy on The Whole Duty of Man, published i'll
1867. Eyre agt Walker
Second: In those days San injunction really
meant an injunction TO stay wase Of property not
dsputable at lar" Where there a shadow of
doubt at Westminster, no Equity Judge would ever
grant an injunction. This is notorious. COnse-
quently, the injunctons granted on the perpetual
common-law right, by Judges SO timd, are evidence
not only of their OWE adhesion to the per-
petual common-law right, but proofs that
oil the contemporary Judges at Westminster
thought with them. Consistently with this, Lord
Mansfield distinctly declares that the first doubt
which that the statute had ever contained
the reply. in g TOnsOn agt Collins and that
of that doubt down at Westminster. instantly re-
fused the injunction, because of the doubt, though
they did not share it. We know from distinct
source that they even suspended the proceedings in
"Macklin agt. Richardson" because "Millar AFT.
Taylor" vas pending in the Kings Bench. There
fore the chain of njuncions they granted, between
1875 and 1871, on the perpetual eOmmOn-law right
postsatory dcs BY presiGtuorg minds represent
eng The WhoLe judicial opinion Of the nation.
ADM. SONS.
o. Admissions-Ths is the highest kind Of evil
dence. A. Milton attacked parliamentary licens
ing act with great fervOr Now when man falls
upon a measure in the heat of controversy he is not
apt to be nice. Yet this poemc, and great enthu-
sast for liberty drew the rein az private property
and solemnly approved the constitutional clause in
the act, the protection of Copyright BY penalties
B. The petitioners to Parliament in 1903. 1t was
their interest to make a strong for Parliamen-
tary interference Yet they ADMITTED they had an
action on the case against Pirates, and had no fears
Of rerdic4 but could not get sufficient damages,
nor enforce them because the pirates were paupers
A leqdl phenomsnon.-Judge Yates had peck at
several minor cases. but never fox one moment, in
discourse that lasted three hours, dared touch
"Roper V. Streater" either in the Kings Bench or
the House of Lords. Now when lawyer dare not
call his own principal witness, we all know Fact Is
dead AGAINST him. and. when he affects to ignore the
leading case against him. that means he cannot get
over the Law of that case-and knows it. Of course
an honest Judge would have faced it, and either got
over it, or else given into IT, Indeed there is no
other recorded instance in which dissenticnt pusne
fudge ever shirked entirely the leading case relied
on by the chief of his court and the otter
rnisnes in case fully reported as Mil
lar AIT TAYLOR II ia phenomenal. Every pract cal
LAWYER knows in his heart what i means. and II is
game that ONLY pays win anu or lnstNar,eneea f
counsel in gliding with assumed indih renee over
what they cannot encounter 1t Is but shallow art
for il blows the Caf directly and the cricket goes
like a shot 10 the ignored case. tn see rhY II ras
IGNORED. Well, Yates ignored Roner act. StreatHr
becsnse he wanted people to celieyr two Internal
fqsohoods: That perpetual CoDvrig t at Law N
printed books did NOT exist before Queen Anne; ard
2 That had il existed 10 would have been mOoOD-
OH opposed 10 pr.Detg. Now, - both III Sc parbcu-
lars Roper or Property. gave hin the he-StreafNr,
or Monopolv gave him the He-and All the Judges IN
both courts gave him the lie That is whv this slip
pery gentlemen eva1ed " Roper AIT. Streater y and
the unprecedented evasion is esdaco that he knew it
smashed him.
thus PALMER act de Witt" and the other cases.
backed by COMMON sense and universal law, prove
mans perptu@l incnrporesl pr"perty in the fruit of
his own skilled labor. That Law, dcviating from
all its habit, dvested man If this RIGHT because he
exercised il, is chimera supported only hy
i76O.
BACON ACT. Yates.
First: We answer a foil according to his folly, and
pull his chimers to pieces. Then we answer him not
according to his folly. bur on the great BacOnian
method. SO choose. Either Bacon was an
idiot or Yates al IDIOT We prefer Bacon and
90 go into matter of fact by the general usage and
the senses Of the old Kingdom sworn to by jury
and confirmed and solidifcd by chain of law
beginning before the statute and continuing. by
the force Of common law after the statute. in per-
feet calend also dicta Of the old judges obter, and
ad rem, and the whole "uncontradicted nv any
usage book iud gTnent or saying" So then Robert
son agt. de Witt" and the complete proof supra Of
non-forfeiture by publication at common law. gives
us copyright in printed books in the United States.
We claim it from the Judges a; Washington. should
we be driven to fight it in that form and
meantime appeal to their couscienoes 10 back MS
with the Legislature Of their countrv. For II Rob
ertsOn making twenty copies of "Caste' and fifty
sets Of parts which Is MULTIPLICATION Of copies and
delivering the words through two hundred actors
reading public themselves-to about n million
spectators who pay. cannot be rilaged of his sole
right to print and pubsEn the United States. what
farce il il to pretend on gronnds OF common lac
common seDse that another British writer for pub
fishing a book, and selling one hundred copies in
Great Britain. can be despoiled in the United States
Of the same right on account OF mere variation in