New-York tribune., 1885-01-04

antee-as is usual In dealings Dotweeh toh'io"on'
That is the stock answer. 1t would not impose ior
one instant on any man accustomed 10 business
but it is thought good enough dor the author. ~
all rests on false assertion which he VINO makes
must know to be false. Personal character is not
considered q sufficient guarantee In business
transactions between @gentlemen.' TheIe Is no
business except that of publishing in which one
party. being himself business man. expects tne
other not being business man, to put hmscii
wholly in his adversary's hands use the "oru
adversary in a commercial sense. The pecuh'ary
interests of author and publisher are Ill great part
directly opposed to each other. Does the puoi'Snor
in his dealings with the printer ana paper-n"noi ~
and binder consider the personal character u Va"
printcr and paper-maker and binder sufficient
guarantee of the accuracy of their accountsI is
the personal character OF his landlord reason ior
not taking lease of his shopI Is tine pcis'h"'
character of his banker reason Tor not koep'"s
passbooki Is, in one word the claim OF inc pup,
Usher to withhold from the author accounts an"
the means Of verifying accounts anything '.' :"
proof of impudence and presumption OF frauo
Strong language' Yes. l know it is. but the
enormities of the system for which the publishers
plead the custom of the trade-a custom estaDiishe"
by themselves in their own intercst-hayc thrlVen
long enough beneath varnish of "rcspectaDiiity'
and il is time to call spade spade IL IS notorious
that publishers in rendering accounts az oet"oe"
themselves and authors on what Is ihgeh'ous9
called tho half profits" system render misleading
accounts They pay one prico 1or p''h''"s ~.
paper, for advertising, and charge inc a"'"''
another and higher price: much higher. Ihey may
give this practice as many hypocritca' names a., y,
they please-I call 1t dishonest. do not say al
publishers are guilty or equally guilty; ou' '"u =,
system exists and general. The writer OF inc ia'
Mall letter admits that :hcre are "harpies' IN tne
trade but thinks hard that the whole class should
be included in a sweeping condemnation. lhere
are several answers TO that remark. but VIII
content myself with asking Why, then. do the
publishers who call themselves respectable maintain
and practice the very system which they well
know enables the harpes" to commit frauds Win
impunity'
will take n single instance ont OF many. Under
the English system the author has no control over
the printing of his own book. His publisher may
print If he likes. 5000. and account to the author
for 1000 Somebody not long ago proposed
clumsy check on this easy swndle by requiring the
authors initials to each copy. Instantly came q
shrek of outraged virtue from the tradc-very
likely from the writer Of the letter l am discussing
as well as from others Are we to be suspected'
ETC., etc. as usual. We'll. my honorable friends
suppose you arc more honorable than your
French confreres. who do not think 1t dishonoraoe
to publish books under a law which. first forblds
printer to print single copy OF any book without
the written order of the author OF that book ahd'
secondly. makes the violation OF that law GRIM
inal offence punishable by imprisonment Why
should YOU object to such law rs thatf You are
members of a community in which statutes against
picking pockets are found necessary. You are
members of u trade in which, by your own confess
sion. dishonesty exists. Why should the honest
men among you cry ont against q proposal which
could only harn the dishonestf You are. l doubt
not patriots How can you be willing to have the
world say that French laws better than English'
Yet tn simple truth is that the rights of authors IN
their dealings with publishers are protected by law
in France and are not protected by law In
England. Il. W. :.