New-York tribune., 1875-07-24

| powers; yet in a very few years they make 'n0
Royal license bow to n precedent tte of proprietor
ship, that could in 1892 have no foundation but m
common law.
I'm l64O the Star Chamber was abolished, ana Tor
q while every body printed what be- liked; there
upon a. free opinions differ. some wrote against tne
Parliament. Straight the two houses Of Parliament
took "a leaf out n the book of Kings, aud passed. an
orIinar ce forbldlng any work 10 be printed with
ont formal license: and then, pirates, relieved
Of he lceDs,r had begun their gare, the same Or
Gnance forbado printing without the consent OF the
owner Of the c0pyright pain Of forfeiture Of the
books 10 the owner of the copyright. Thus the
Commonwealth, in protecting copyri bit, went .
step beyond the monarchical governments that pre-
eeded IT, which please make note of, Brother
Jonarhau
November 1874, Milton published bis famous de-
fense of unlicensed printing and attacked that por-
ton OF the aforesaid ordinance which infringed
common Law liberties; but he sanctioned very SOL
EMMY tlat portion which protected common law
rights. That great enthusiast for Just liberty did
not advocate lawess liccnsc Tie used these words,
1.-THE JUS, retaining of each man his several copy
lcopyr ght whieh, God forbid, slOn,d be gain.
said
COPYRIGHT IN THE REIGN or CHARLES II.
Ammo 1862 Act - aud Charles H. prohibited
printing any book without consent Of the upon
pain of certain forfcifures half 10 the King half 10
the oner This statute followed the wording of the
Republican ordinance. | need a liy say that IN
any Act OF Parliament "owner" means the legal
owner not the claimant OF an impossible or even
dOnbtfnl right. id-r tins statute a leading
was tried, that might be entitled Property agt-
Monopoly. "streaterT held what our ancestors
with Il scieztiiic precision their mndde-headed de-
scend;mts have lost till this day-brt J will not
allow it to be l0st--cacd "A Patent;' he was law
pa.entec T. e., he bad from the Crown "A sole right
to PRINT Law Ttporis and thot you poor mnidle-
heals, Yates and Macaulay, was "a monopoly IN
b0oksr if YOU like Streater reprinted Judge Crokes
reports. Roper sued -treatcr under 10 aud IL
Charles H., proving his lcgl ownership by pur-
chase of Croke's copyright from Croke's ex-
ecutor. Roper's title was at common law;
for the statute Of Charles II. never pretended 20
confer ownrrship it only protected the existing
legal owner by sp .cal remedies. streatcr iuI0-
nopoiyl pleaded the Kings grant; Roper property
dennued. This bgonght the question Of law before
the fnll Court OF Common Pleas. 1t given Tor
the plaintiff against the King, by judges no wers
removable M the viii of he Sovereign, and more n-
clined to stretch point for him than against him.
Opposed to a Royal graat, had Roper ute at law
been doubtful. they wOuld have swept HIM out Of
court with a besou.
Successive licensing actr pTONffft me f'inilpi-
law owner Of copyright until 1914. when the last
act expired; but, another was Threatened tor i've
years. q dread hung over piracy. i hs being re-
moved in 1899, the pirates went 10 work with snch
fury that the proprietors of copyright began cry
ont aud in 1908 petltoned Parliament protection.
For six weary years they bcsieged hard hearts and
apathetic ears; o. the petitions survives, and
therein the petitioners, though II was their interest
90 exaggerate their ease, and say they had no
remedy at law, do, on the contrary, admit
there is remedy at common Law. Bus
they say il is inadequate; that In action on the
case against a pirate the jury will give no more
damages than be- proved; and how eau
thousand pratical copies be traced ell over tue
countrvi Besides tie defendant is always
paupcr ETC.. etc" Cited from tine Journals Of the
House, Burroughs. 2,3is.
A LINK II THE HISTORY or coPyRIGuT.
In 1903 the Legislature took pity authors ard
honest publishers and passed an act the words Of
which and their ootempOrlneous Interpretation are
necessarily the last great link IN the history of copy
right before that creature of the common law becams
the nurselng of statutes. The preamble of statute
is not law but history: il relates antecedent facts,
and declares the and motives Of the enc ctnlens
to follow. Instead of commeuts pnt Itahcs:
whereas. printers. bookseers and others, have "
and pnhlisirrg hook. and other wrungs witnont tie
the authors. ropr'efors, to cr very gt
famcs-f0r preventing therefore such Druccs for tbs
future be II enacted etc" sth Anne, Cap. 49, sec /.
In tie body of the act thus prefaced, the old word
"copy' for "corgrghP is used SIX times in pre-
cisely the same seuse as it had been used for ages
and 80 far from invepting even a new protection 10
old copyright, Us dreamers fancy, the st, in that
respect also, is servile imitation Of the various
licensing acts. As the mOnaTehical licensing acts
and the Republican ordinances found OTRers and
provrieios of copg" this act finds propriet0s Ok
copy;" and, the Republican and MonarcheA
acts protected the existing owners or propretofs OK
copy by cOntscation of the pratical books. 30
this act protects the existing pr0pr1eOrs OF copy
by coni-atiOn of the plrltical DoOksi and. to any
man with an eye in his mind, this de-
hberate imitation of preceding acts, thas
had recognized copyright" at common law, aud
protected by penalties, is not only recognition OF
the property but a recognition OF the recognIilons
and the penalties. Drelners always cOnfoand dates.
They forget that many of the Parliament men. A. ID.
l7O9 had themselves in person passed. the licensing
acts. Even the apparent novelty, the eurtaiIng
clause, a bungling attempt to arrive IN another
wav at the temporary feature, which the char
actcrisfc of the licensing acts. The bill, We know,
went into Com ntee an act protecting property Jor-
erer By penalties. Ia committee IL encountered Old
members, and these with 4 seryile double imitation
OF the licensing acts. rhch Peadl aud only pas',d
for a term, fixed an imitation term TO the imitation
penalties but 80 un,kiiully that by the grannsil-
cal sense Of their words they shortened the days Il
the sacred everlasting property itself sublect %
saving clause. which afterwards proved too obscure
and feeble to combat the spoliation elase they liked
a terIl-of a book already printed-2I years Of
book 70 be printed, II years but l more should
the author survive the first term.
CONSTRUCTION or THE STATUTE.
Such 70 4 reader of this day, when the application