New-York tribune., 1886-05-30
THE COPYRIGHT QUESTION.
LETTER FROM SENATOR CHACE.

20 fas td,tor OF The Trtomne.
80. ,have rarc,v if ever, taken any notice
ai les ciiticsng ang acton oy myself or
a.. r.,n,tt,es villa which have coen conuect" but
On o tod ~ entijlcl a P0Sitshor on justice
t A.tno-s" yo seen 10 ilc to have hecn led 10 use
some exp,esi wacn not onlS do me, bur yo'r'e,oS
also an iiins'ice. II speaking vt AnSahucr = NV
clara. article In DiIi yog say he Offers fc'res"S
contrast to tie dishcarteung report OF TIE sene ''
,uttee on Patents accompanying tho Chace '"iYns".
hill 4, which the dishonest principle is frankly aVoweo
that our paramount Gu'y Is 10 n oteet TIE ms''i "
vest,sents OF own people in M unjust business '
that the rights o! Foreigners are to e feSo'o o",
q FAR they do not interfere VII" '"o
labor in this county" .
- or,.,ss,, T. u,,on our RECOGNITION oi the para
mount lu,y OF PROTECTING TIE material Interests an1 the
Income OF labor In the report we uSe ''o 'o'o"'"e
language: .,.., -.
yn,r ,o,nnittee recognize the moral obligation OF
comfy amongst nations aud believe tnat Tue o"s h, M
,,af.rtn moral and intellectual, oi our leop!e VIII
nc t,"ps"di T@iwsn a" lbs question Tho accompanying
bll while based upon tn,t pfncpe, r'coSi;' ;'s & .o
az orr own people aud proceeds so lar only III ,curlns
rights Of elzens o olhsr naos IS AZ s ,o sounry or
vithoat interfering witD tie income Vi o"' Wv" i"'
Earlier In the report We say:
While II is trae as all thinking men VIII admit that
fe influence OF literature upon the welfare oi the Naluh
Is and h been far more tenehcent than that OF mere
ertv in ic,s has procec iod much further and upon
much broader basis than has tha' ulon he syeyt 80 80
nave smseycd loss We refer to the United
states recognize the rihs OF lne t - th" 40 nro
ducous o authorship. Ii is hu 800 years since prtcE
un he hl g sea, recognized "a an honoraoie calhh
siy Sir Fancis Dake was knehted for his successful
rohbcres. the OF which he shared WIN tne Io"h.
The tmlc viii come ben leorle Will look back upon
oar .r. 10 recognize this rigi Of the f"reen author
very mnch as we view tnc i, acuon ., Vi iNe''S" IN
Ccsiors III regard 10 piracy an" p'N"'ecIlus'
Further say:
The theory accepted by some that we may secure
10 ~ Of
literary property is. IN the u Smen' oi your coh'eo
ii ri-;aken one.
Know von d, not intend to crucise any ujustly.
and I feel sure that il Won Will carefuy examine the
phrases have quoted together with the whole context
OF the committees report you will tompertAe har'hhes7
of the phrase which have used In charging tho "i'
avowIng a dishonest principle"
Further on yOu say: u" Yet While we recognize an
authors property his lurc ms coat every where we
tnss, upon circamsrrbins his right to his book ty geo
graphical boundaries" and proceed to quote tho
following language from McClurs:
To take away an Euglshman's gold on its arriva in
New York submit frr one moment 10 an American
citizen being robbed OF ms personal effects on their ar
rival London, are things which coud not De lnOueht
o. Bat to plain common sense Is there really any
difference between this and the coniscans 0I ,n, u,
an author t. property his writings and that night eau
not Justly limited By the boundaries o ms own conn
try 6ut must follow him the civilized world over TIE
trunk ana the Amerieans book is as much his own in
England as his coat or his hat
Then You say: "Tuis elementary ethics; but a great
many American writers aud speakers copy right nave
not yet learned it," Here McClUrg makes the same error
which nearly all authors have made IN treating this slb
iect and YOU seem have adopted his orIOr namely;
you aud hey distinction between ohattei or
any other species % property the possession OF which IS
a common law ri-h and special privilege such as a
natent right or a copyright. McCuIg. yourselves and
many others fail the error or treating the rlsht I"
csc two kinds property being base upon the
same principle, hut submit that when you quarrel win
the committee in regard 70 that matter you will also
have join co-deiendants the trainers OF tie Const-
tuition and all the statesmen OF the world thus far for
nowhere the civilized world are the Two Kinds OF prop
erty recognized standiae apon the Same basis Tho
trainers the Constitution. article l. section s. clause :.
the following language: Congress shall nave the
power promote the progress OF science and useful
arts by securing for limited times to authors ndnventors
the exclusive right their respective writings aud dis
cOyeries" you that the fathers who framed and
adopted the Constitution tanned the dishonest
principle also aud di not grant the abstract Igt OF
the author" And not only but every Government
that has enacted a copyright law has been equally dis
bonest Further how could expect MS to giant TO
authors privilege which inhibited by the Language OF
the Constitution
You While we recognize an authors property In
his coat everywhere insist upon crcumsrribng his
right TO his book ty geographical boundaries II 1
were disposed captous should point out that you
had fallen into error FOR his right to his book Is as
much common law rsat his right to his purse or his
coat Can You not the difference between his right
20 the book chatte and copyright This difference
Is well illustrated by the pheasant proposition The
common law protects man In the possession OF his
pheasants no matter how many may be haehed out on
bis domain but does protect him in the hight TO
hatch pheasants The common law protects the authors
right TO his cnattc to himself and his heirs for
all time but under the Constitution the statute can only
give him copyright for limited time anu that for
special matter Of that not only ch
as yourselves but great number OF very intelligent
gentlemen who follow the profession OF authorship
should allow themselves be misled by this strange
misapprehension In regard 20 these two kinds cr
property.
You also take exception to the efforts OF the committee
10 protect the "income Of labor" And here you
use the ohattel argument though II were moral
wrong prevent foreigners bringing his property into
thi. country freely ana without charge What Is the
the protective principle OF w2ich your Journal
has defender in this countryf The duty
upon books is 25 per cent in other words practically
before we l an Englishman bring four books into this
country the people OF the United States demand OF him
enough money pay for book ana we do IL for the
purpose Of securing the income OF labor IN this coun-
try you prepared 10 renonnce all your professions
right taat srdl row not but prefer to believe
that upon further thought viii disavow this criticism
upon the bill.
AS regards the authors themselves very large major
ity OF them unable to emancpate themselves from
the misapprehenson that the authors property In his
production is a common law right. will not attempt to
Prgue the question OF the original principle but content
myself with slmIly suggesting to those gentlemen
whether it woul1 be well for them TO such
rights they may under tie Constitution nrst for the
brethren abroad the other contract aerward
for they will hnd that very big one. Probably they
will not fud statesman in thousand the world
pyer who will agree with them. Very respectfully.
J. GRACE.
Un.ted States Seaate. Washington. O., May 24 1885,
MIR. TUPPEHS CONFIDENCES.