The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-03-26
rnE clsE or MR. Il. II. DANA, JR.
The True Nature OF the Lawrcncc-W Wheaton,
CoufruVcr-V


Tho permanent Interest NJ stake was in
the willow AMI daughters II Air. hcaton. md
now IN his daughter, y iss wheaton. The cpn-
trDvcr-y between Mr.. L .wr, wee aud th.n re-
ll'D- to their rrmlItu. nights = fr.unD.4tiun.
- lar as NJ. Dana o. concerned, he las NOT any
lecuuiary Interest, except IN costs and eX-
Let us expl,in Mrs. wheaton was the owner
Of tue teAt and her husbands notes, and had
notation. Her acre NJ with Mr.. Lawrence
was O. at he snou,i auaotate q slng.e edition. Of
limited u4Woer not siereOb typed. When That
edition was u, lirs. Wheaton, could employ
any ulnOia tlr SHE pleased t.r TIE next edition.
Sue reGlgagcd Mr.. LAWRENCE for the edition Of
I,1j on the same terms. When thAt cGition
WIS sold MI Lawrence could not publish au an
notated edition. ior ATS. Wheat n owned tie
text. and she could not reprint his notes, be-
cause Sue had them only for the one edition.
The ladies had become entirely dissatisfied
with MI Lawrence. fJr the reasons set flrta m
Miss WheatOu's ursW r. Record. PAGES p 81
]; was not merely because he had worked into
his notes so much C4lholnism and accession as
To have given great uffence, aud to cause the
Government 10 refuse to take any copies. aud 10
gave cIet encouragement TO our enemies
abrOi'. but they were dissatisfied on literary
RfpuHlT, from Tue ut1ce OF lsleAus tPu4luted
with tho suffice, and had become distru.tf i
Of Mr.. Lawrence On personal Grounds. Their
Strong objections to Mr.. Lawrence on all
grounds are fully nut delicaiely set forth BY Aiss
Wheaton IN her answer On the record ; and, in-
deed, she charges him. under oath, with frau
duleut representations and cOncealnents."
Record. y ige "a Tntr objections to Ms IN
competeuNy As annoia,or are set ON Record, age
The edition Of 1853 worked OF very slowly;
still, 1t would be exhausted, prop lily, in tho
under the advice OF friends, applied 10
Mr. Dana To annotlte tue next edition.
MS was her perfect Tsht. lie declined.
After some time, on renewed aVphcaton, he
accented the post. The arrdn lenents with MN,
US far a. the rights were concerned, were tins
same as with Mr. Lawrence. lie was to edit one
edition, Of limited number, not s;eroOty bed,
aud wnen II was exhausted Miss Wheaton could
employ what annOtatur she pleased. Mr. Daua
began hls work IN lsGi and published his cdi-
tOn IN lSB IL was not published untii all the
copies Of the Lawrence edition were gone. hey
were never riya. editions, Miss Wheaton owning
each, and the Litter only succeeded the former
when 1t was exhausted. there was only tue
literary competition Is 10 the opinions OF schol-
Hrs between deiunct edition aud an edition
soon to be defunct,
At the tfih the Court decided the points "a to
the lights Of tue Wheatons to fun reannotatiOn
rather strictly against the Nheatons, limi.ng
the scope Of Ioannotation and enarsing tie
rights OF the hrst annotator. H. the opinion 81
many Jurists, INCLUDING the late ii race Blnney,
these rules Will lot stand. and would preclu
all adequate reanuotation Of any text, II l. no
di,respect to tho Circuit Court To say this, "a the
point WAS novel, peculiar, aud diMrnlt'
viii must be decided hy the supreme CourO.
Judge clifford held that there were some notes
when did infringe the nights Of the hisi aunot l.
examine tho details satisfactorily, referred the
whole matter 10 m 1stCr, aud refused 10 grant
the injunction prayed for There has never
ueeh an injunction against MT. pahl euitloh'
and II has long since been exhausted. Miss
W hcaton may now publish "A mini edition, ana
employ whnmsoeNcr she plcases ms auuotator.
and neither Mr. l. lwrence nor Mr.. Dam can pub
lish an annutato edition without her leave she
cannot reprint the notes without their leNe,
ana either OF them can use IN ltter II his own
notes IN any indie, endont work on international
law Or any 81 It's topics.
Tue above statement shows TO every reader,
lawyer or not, what the history and condition
OF the SO are and dispels the notioas that have
tween Mr.. Lawrence and Mr.. Dana on conpet-
Ing editions, and that Mr. Dana has been cOn-
yirted OF literary piracy. II Is a bona Udc and
dlmcult controversy "a to the rights OF the own
or OF the text IN respect to future annutations,
| forever COR, rather while the copyright lasts),
and whether Mr.. Dana's edition eXcecds those
rights. What tn ase rights are, the Circuit Court
they must DE decided finally by the supreme
Court. II they are decided m one way, the notes
! do not exceed the rights Of tine owner OF the
| text II they are decided in conformity with
| the rules OF tho Circuit Court, there may be-
| found some excess, but whether OF sufficient
| amount to warrant any Interference by the
Court, both editions being long sold will be- then
TO be decided. However decided, IL will not affect
the honor OF Mr.. Dana, as he acted openly, under
bona tde claim OF right, and produced his man
| uscript notes aud Lawrence's edition, with his
| ny leaves and comments in court. This is
| understood, and II any one doubts IL, Judge
Lowell, one OF the Court who tried the case, and
| Mr.. HiW Paine the Master. consider II so In
| dsputable that they have felt II In no way in
| s. TO all persons who Inquire OF them. The per
| sttens efforts Of Mr.. Lawrence (angry and cha
| grined al not being re-engaged by the Whea-
tonsl to injure Mr.. Dana's reputation with jurlstf
| and scholars becsuse OF this suit, have utterly
| failed. and onlv rso9t UPON him.