New-York tribune., 1886-04-05
NETWORK DAILY TRIBUNE MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1885
authority to imt the use Of other property-for
example, by restricting the power OF a testator
20 J;sno.a of his estate.

authority to init the use OF other property-1or
example. by restricting the power OF testator
to dispose of his estate.
2. Does not the reciprocity clause in Senator
IIawley's bill imply that copyright is not the
recopntion of absolute ownership. but be-
neyolept grant7 Answer No; because it is
one thing to recognize right and another
thing TO offer facilities for defending 1t In
foreign jurisdiction. The latter may be made
the subject of international bargain, II de-
mand of quid pro quo is necessary to protect
the rights of either party.
3. Does not the very passage OF copyright
law imply that an author has no absolute
property in I is published thoughts such as he
has in his material possessions which need no
special legislation Answer: No. The his
tory of copyright legislation proves the con-
trary. Literary property was protected by the
common law for more than two hundred years,
without any statute of copyright. The statute
was enacted on the petition of the authors
themselves as an additional protection, because
the remedies against piracy provided by the
common law proved Intellectual. But the
answers to all these questions were given long
ago by authoritative judicial decisions and are
not subjects of implication or inference. That
the exclusive Use and control of bis creations
belongs to an author by natural right and not
by legislative favor is proposition upon
which the authorities are substantially agreed.
American declarations are as plain as those OF
the jurisprudence of England which we have in
herited. The State of Massachusetts,, which
passed n copyright law as early as 1888, placed
it on the high ground that security of the
fruits of their study and industry is one OF the
natural rights of all men, there being no prop
"erty more peculiarly a mans own than that
(which is produced by the labor of his mind"
Connecticut enacted a copyright law III the
same year, declaring it to be "peifectly agree
[" able to the principles of natural equity and JUS
/" tice that every author should be secured III re-
ceiving he profits that may arise from the sale
q of his works" New York, in framing statute
of copyright in 1856, provided that the act
should not affect the commOn-law right OF
authors. which, as we have seen, was absolute
and unlimited. Henry Clay, in his often
quoted copyright report to the United States
Senate. in 1897, said awe should all be
shocked if the law tolerated the least invasion
of the rights of property IN the case of mer-
"chandse whilst those which justly belong to
"the works of authors are exposed to daily TO-
"lation without the possibility of their invoking
the aid of the law"
We wish we could add that Congressman and
other people had always taken this enlightened
view of the ethics and history of the question
but some crude ideas of literary property which
we're really disposed of generations ago seem
still to haunt mems minds, and are periodically
brought forth as new arguments. MIR. foxs
notion that the grant to an author OF copy
/" ri yht revenue is in the nature of pension for
"public services, not the recogni tion of q claim
for property" is one of them.