New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-11-05

In am emortyatt0n
court and reported AM never WEN ~
bryod tae single motion for nm injunction asuco A.
Chambers. In the City OF New-iork.
Now. IT, ia fact that the question Of memorial
,ion has been discussed in no fewer than five i'm
portant American eases since 1860 all Of when
NAV he fonnd in the reports. The leading case OF
Kecne agt. Kimbal (which is merely cited in
the "Law OF Literature" In this connecticut
WAS decided upon this direct issue by the
Supreme Court of Massachusetts,. Stress Is here
laid upon one unmportant .unrported case, whi'e
five leading reported are ignored III connection
with the above statement. Again.
when the spectators ut public performance OF q
drama have not however entered n.n sor tSe
they may make OF their Ordinary ihcts anu U, W
presence such performance We do not see how tey
Dc restrained to the by them Of so much 81 X
by them, that they retain or carry a"ay
with them III their memory. Vol H., 4. 31l'
Tbs doctrine Of restrictive notice." which never
met with any favor outside of the Superior Court OF
New-York, has been thoroughly exploded. The
reader. who has better sourceo information than
the LAW of Literature after reading what Is
said In that book concerning the rights OF foreign
dramatiss in our courts will doubtless agree WITH
the author that our copyright laws present para
doxical and anomalous condition OF things, ana are
a qualification and o curiosity Certain PROPOSE
tons are laid down in the text and reiterated III
note. For convenience we quote from the latter III
which the author informs his readers that III one
newspaper and two periodicals he has, IN COM
menting upon this rather startling result OF the
decisions in the cases alluded TO in thetext, ventnred
fhe following reflections" The reader will observe
the clear, concise style of the following;
These propositions arefirst that aendramafic au
thor in this country practically, and IN effect. rccelNt
precisely the protection ia his literary properly "
the receives in his; and second that by hsgeH
rsnt la,
enjoy greater privileges of protection in is hterar
properly than he could by complying with thl m VIA
ever NAV he Thought of tnis law lawand u 70 diH
cut to how could well be otherwise IMAM IL s.'u
il not surpising that the aoove parIioxca ava aona
ous condition OF tlngs-naTnely, law when HNS |" rs
IN ,xeep, upon lis compliance certain formula,
aud ulun payment by INN OF ctftanl le'
and Law which rewards its own breach rater ,hna ~
mcmhered the construction of those sritn,"s 10y
iY nevsparer H. ~ Erpress Nov 1871 b. eSclaim
.at they were - qualification AID curiosity 10
Il cannot well lie Bu3Ic pocy for nation 20 dls'llh
mate against it's own citizs and where it can he show
that, by declining 10 Iassa certain law or hws s,as',
staits, or tn n, gctldt" certain treaty or ueucs,
nation Is in effect putting premium upon alenan aDo
Gscours cement and penalty nlon eilH'l,smpJI.'
t .ucn Laws statutes, and treaties desirable. ch
podien and necessary. N0ii y. 3Jl-@
Il is difficult TO critcise in moderate language
such statements found ia legal textbook when
tho law on this point may be accurately learned
with 40 little study. They erroneous as they
are ridiculous When the productions OF foreign
dramatiss have been protected by our courts IL mas
been upon the principles Of common law and be-
cause the plays III manuscript. The cases did
not arise under tho copyright statutes. The same
oomnon law protection would be extended To lot
Of scenery or costumes imported from Paris Under
similar circumstances the same protection L.
granted to foreign aud native authors rrcs eetiye OF
their nativity OF citizenship. Common law gives
nothing TO a foreign dramatst which it does MOI
give 70 native The statutes give copyright to
native ard nothing to foreign drimatist. In th'
case Of an uncopyrighted play in manuscript, ther'
is no difference between the rights of native an
hose OF n foreign tlramatist. Both have the sam.
common law night of property III their manuscript
PLAYS; both are entitled to the same common Law
remedies. But this common law protection
is all Chat n foreign dralnatlst receive
in our courts he has rights under the statute
and must keep his play in manuscript. If, how
ever lie should copyright il stil keeping it in man
uscript as did Miss Kcene in the case of Our Amer
lean Cousn"l, The copyright would he void while hIs
common law rights would remain unchanged 4
native drama.ist, on the other hand. may obtain for
his drama a statutory copyright which secures 10
him tie exclusive right of publishing printed copper
and the sole liberty OF representing 1t upoh TIT
stage. lie thus acquires ucc.ucu alNdilt'ecS hHi'n
il is not necessary here to enuIneratc. The law,
then does NOT "give to alien, h OF course anc
freely what il denies 30 the citizen )" foreign
lranatist does NOT receive precisely the same pro
lection in his literary property az the citizen receives
IN hiss" and he does not acquire greater privilege
"by neglectng to comply with our copyright laws
than he could by complying with theu." Ii l.
hardly necessary to add that only to those wh'
y,ope in such fog az we have endeavorcd to dispc
will our copyright laws in this respect present Il
paradOxical and anomalous condition OF things" -.
apprar to be 80 qualification and u curiosity
We have not pointed out all the important error
that we have noticed in the q" Law of Literatur',
and we have evidently not noticed all that are to be
fonnd In the book. We have purposely refraincc
from extended comment, and shall here offer none.
Extracts enough are given to show that to many Of it
readers the book must appear ridiculous; to other
il use may prove dangerous In no department oi
literature excepting perhaps medical works. IL Tn"
author held to higher degree of accuracy, grave
responsibility than in treatses on law. Such book
are read not for amusement Though we confess that
many will find amusement in the book under rsyew),
but for instruction. They are used guides in &c
;crInining the rights Of men, What protection has
American legal literature against the publication o.
books which are mschievOus because they are mis-
leading =. s. ID.
Srm 11utlicltious