National Republican., 1884-03-29
THE COPYRIGHT BILL.

A Statement OF the Principles of the Adj
JudIcatcd Cases on the Subject.
Tho house judiciary committee yesterday
heard Mr. Henry Watterson in explanation
and advocacy Of the proposed eiGht'hour
news copyright bill. There was full at
tendance and the members of the committee
manifested much interest in tho topic of in
quiry. Mr.. Wattcrson's presentation of tho
matter was substantially identical with his
argument Before the joint library committee
on the fourteenth instant except that he yes
terday submitted the following comprehen-
sive statement Of tho principles of the ad.
Indicated cases on the subject: whether in
England copyright existed at all in news
papers seemed TO have been doubted by Lord
Chelmsford in Platt VS.. Walter, II Law Times
lU. 81. 150, referring to the language of
Knight Bruce, l.. j.. in ex parte Fors, although
in the latter case Turner, l.. j., considered
copyright in newspaper as right (which
undoubtedly exists"
But the doubt was set at rest by Vice
Chancellor Malius in the case of Cox VS.. the
Land and Water company IL. II. of Eq, 32i),
who decided tho question, remarking that the
idea Of there being no copyright at all in
newspaper articles was repugnant to common
sense aud common honesty. He said: Now
suppose, for instance, tho proprietor of o
newspaper employs correspondent abroad,
and that correspondent, being employed and
sent abroad at great expense, makes COM
munications to newspaper which are highly
appreciated by the public, can 1t be said that
another newspaper, published perhaps in tho
evening of the same day, may take and pub
lish those communications in extenso with
or without acknowledgment? q I'll
that Is the law, it is a monstrous state of law,
repugnant to common sense and common
honesty, because that there is property in
those articles there can be no shadow OF
doubt" After showing. by reference TO
other decisions (Mayhew VS.. Maxwell, 1 j.
and H., 312; Strahan VS.. Graham, decision
of his own, affirmed by the lord chancellor
Sweet VS.. Benning. 16 G. b., 459), that regis
tration was not necessary to secure the right
he concludes, as follows:
Though it is seldom worth the while OF
proprietors to assert the copyright in articles
| in a newspaper, l am of opinion that whether
it be the letters of correspondent abroad
or the publication Of o tale, or treatise, ol
the review of book, or whatever else, he
acquires-1 will not say as copyright, but as
property-such property in every article fol
which he pays, under tho eighteenth section
of the act, or by the general rules of property
as will entitle him, If he thinks it worth
while, to prohibit any other person from pub
fishing the same thing in any other news
paper or in any other FORM"
The copyright in newspaper was held tC
be included in the words goods and chattels'
in the 125th section of the bankruptcy con
solidation act Of 1S49. lex parte Fors, 6 w
r., ALI. citing Longman VS.. Tripp, Blu. and
Pul. IN. r., 81. Vide Kelly VS.. Hatton, l.
r., 8 ch., app. 703)
In q case before Lord Curriehill. in Scot
land, Charles Reade maintained an action
against the Glasgow Herald for damages fol
Infringement of copyright by the putlica.
tion of his sketch, called "A Hero and Mar.
tyr" which appeared originally in the Pal
lfdH Gdsette, and which the Herald had trans
mitted from London by its special wire 70,
next days paper. [Capinger on Copyright
47O.
The case of Clayton VS.. Stone e, Paine'f
circuit court reports, p 3S2,) was decided by
Mr.. Justice Thompson. 1t was an action fol
the penalty prescribed by the statute for an
infringement of copyright. The defendant:
were editors and proprietors Of the New Yorl
Commercial Aduertiser, and copied into thei
paper the daily price current or review Of thu
market, compiled by the plaintiffs daily,
few hours after its appearance in each issu
of their paper. Judgment was ordered TO
the defendants, on the ground that the cas-
was not within the statutes.