New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-21

the public, but of clique much smaller IMAM ''o
pickpockets What he does is as follows: lie puys-
one volume at the trade price. 6s, and not the pup
lie price. and then takes IL to composltor, WHO
charges him say f22. He saves the odd to ov
violation of Equity, and, even at the compositors
desk, he reaps wha. he has not sown. Then he goes
to the pressmen, and they wed new and u.s.
tinct paper vehicles to the one SET oi
letters conveying the author's composition.
He paws full equivalent for oil the
vehicles. and none for the more valuable compost
ton His moral position is exactly that OF man
who. having paid Is. for the use of horse
steals him. and then honestly buys gig and har-
ness. and deals with the lot. and calls himself an
honest trader He undersclls the breeder of the
horse because trade is competition and stealing Is
deal cheaper than breeding. To drop metaphors, ne
is not like the author or his assignee. ont OF pocket
saw 1900 hy so many hours labor and loss OF tllpe.
His one copy is all he paid for, and IT COST much ss
than the authors writing paper and he cannon De
robbed of that one COPY The true character OF the
transaction appears {: ist by the now claimant IN
derseling ID by his paving the compos'tors labor
and the preSsmcns; Sd, by his buying the paper ana
the bindng; 4th. by his taking gratis the nght 70
wed the composition to the vehicles and sell not Ine
ideas merely-he is welcome 10 them-Dut the Leiy
material sequence Of words that conveys, certain
ideas and is Of more commercial r0lae than all the We
hices pat together each of which vehicle; he pays
for. BY taking that valuable right gratis he comes
sion of the sole right to do that thing unless ont
lawed on the spot for having lawfully done it.
Now Yates concludes ont of the depths OF DIS
inner consciousness. that an author is, and always
was a dog and the public purchaser man SO ne
infers, naturally enough from that assumption, 'no
orr forefathers saw nothing but the claim OF ire one
man concerned. But am not out OF my senses; ana
they tell NE that an author Is not dog pu, q iDah,
and The man in possession, great matter ia iaW Dc
of whose maxims IS IN 0qudh Jure meuof Isl co"a'0
LAW AND CONFLICTING TITLES.
Forego the blind assumption, contradlcted ny our
senses that an author is a dog. and see how Law
deals With oqualia jma conflicting titles between
man and man. A has often good title; but u
better and Law constantly balances. aye, and with
great nicely respectable titles and prefers mol inc
weaker as Yates proposes, bnt the stronger. III Is
specializing against common sense and rating the
common ancestors of Americans and English TOO
much below their French contemporaries TO assume
that they could not have done az lust thing as
Frenchmen did, and Queen Anne's Parliament ap-
proved, could not have balanced these two titles
and preferred the elder legal title, soliditied by
occupancy, in land where law both abhors
diyestiture and reads implied contracts as
exchanges of equivalents. On the contrary,
INV reading and observation show me that our ances-
tors of the common law did hold a balance between
the authors precedent tile plus possession and the
Just and large liberty acquired by tho public plr-
chaser; and did not underrate either conflicting
claim. find in old times the word copyright"
and find no such words as property IN ideas"
and no such thing except in patentee. L find that
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the pub
lie purchaser of volume could take whole
chapters verbatim, and the whole coinpo-
stion by rewordDg it, Or he could take
all the salient ideas, and half tho words
and print them in an abrideement. In France
l. Inx .itlIff
no remedy under the common law, against Scapmia
for this, though it ruined him. and killed him. The
English reader could abrldge: adapt translate re,
word turn another mans story into play, ana
print the play etc, etc. can find no property III
bare IDEAS. But l do find that our forsfathers
were not out of their senses. They had eyes;
they saw that taking the authors very words,
and also his title, and also his reputation,
crushed not his incorporeal rights alone but
wagon-lOad Of material property lawfully created
by the original proprietor or hs assignee, under ms
sole title 10 print THIS struck them as violation
of Title p'us Occupancy. In Elizabeth's day, me
Duke of Qneensbury. whose grandfather multiplied
copies. and left them kicking about III other hands
for 80 years, and aid not publish himself would most
Copyright for rant of that very use and occupancy,
which Yates pretends operated of old a. forfeiture
so wide is this iterate ass from all received com,
mon law examples of property made common, and
from the true mind of antiquity.
COMMON LAW EQUITY.
Common law equity is Of every age; and a fair
kew to the antique mind ia supplied by al modern
case "Sweet agt. Gator" Sugdcn sold TO Sweet the
right to create and publish edition of thousand
volumes Sugden on Powers" After time, and
not very short time. he sold similar right to
Gator Sweet moved tho court to restrain Gator.
| There was no possible remedy under the Copyright
Act; for Gator was Sugden, who bad retained his
Copvright The Judge talked loose, inaccurate
language but he went in principle where alone the
remedy lay, out of the Copyright Acts. into
the law of implied contract. Sugden had
sold Sweet the right to PRINT and sell an
edition But now, by exercising his undoubted
statutory right, he barred Sweets sale Of
some of tho volumes created in good faith.
The Court restrained Gator Thus the common law
of contracts which is the law Yates has himself ap
pcaled to- ore,porcred the Copyright hd in Copyright
case; and the very same equity, founded on common
law, barred divestituro of copyright by publication
in old times That equity influenced GU forelathers
dtroaqh hcg Senses Just men, who respect the law,
pcrsonify IT, Law in their view. is just man. This
inst man gave the author, or his assignee the sole
right TO PRINT and publish thousand volumes IT.,
tie moment he tried TO sell, this just man. called the
law bad robbed the author Of his sole right. tins
lust man would have been perii'lious and cruel.
What encourage man to print, by admitting BIS
sole right and then rob hiIn of his power to sell the
volumes as we'll as of bis sole right to print This
would have been worse wreng than Nwect ior
he WAS not printed for months Now Yates
would launch his sham antique Pirate or Fur
PubcOla the moment after publication. Not one
word Of all this is offered TO prove that copyright
at common law existed IN printed books hut Only
TO show how unsafe is the method of the schoolmcn,
and how wide of the mark the arrogant sophi-t
goes who defies my Lord Bacon, and reasons a
pror about simple historical fact that can only be
CHARLES READE.
London, Aug. T. 1873.