The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-07-02
SECRET OPPOSITION.


Now. turn 10 the opposition. Do we find any
similar weight of intelligence or influence
opposing this bill: On the contrary. the Op-
position is almost anonymous. The firm
of New York lawyers who appeared before
the Judiciary Committee in opposition 10
the BILL gave as the name of their client
Ignatius kOehler Of Philadelphia, small
publisher, whose income for year would
probably not be sufficient to pay the fees Of
this firm in opposing the bill. In the pre-
sent generation no measure has been called
for with such unanimity ofsentiment by the
intelligent people of the country none OF any
consequence has been opposed by so few.
Where is the proof that 1.-THE people want
this bill defeated? Who, besides Mr.. Gar
diner Hubbard, has appeared against it?
The passage Of the bill is moreover de-
manded by the highest principles of moral
itv. What is sOrddly taken for republica-
ton on this side of the water is undOubted-
" property on the other side and Is of pecu-
mary value here, and to say that It's appro-
priatiOn ought not 10 be made an Oiensc
against the law is in effect to say that the
appropriation Of domestic copyright proper
ty ought TO have been permitted. But to do
this one would become virtually nulli1er
of the Constitution, which is the fountain OF
authors rights in America.
As to the amendments proposed by Mr..
PaysOn, the first provided for a formal
reciprocity. the second for the omis-
sion Of the clause prohibiting the i'm
portation OF foreign editions OF copy
righted books. First, no friend Of copy
right objects to the reciprocal clause,
and il was omitted only because by its for
NAL exclusion it was thought that reel
procity would he more quickly obtained.
since the progress Of reciprocal arrange
ments is often retarded by making hard
and-fast conditions. The attitude of foreign
countries on the subject is Enthusiastically,
! even strenuOusly, in favor OF copyright ar
engagements with the United states, such rs
| they all have among themselves, and they
have already formally asked us 10 become
a party TO the Berne International Copy
right Treaty. However, the formal clause
has been inserted in Mr.. simonds's bill in
| trOduced since the vote of Nav ID. The
striking out Of the nOn-impOrtatiOn clause
was proposed by the enemies Of the bill, and
| the absurdity Of its omission while retain
| ing the printing clausc-which insurcs the
printers against loss by trade disturbance
will be evident when one stops to consider
the character Of copyright. One cannot
own a book unless he controls the sale, and
having given the right 10 this market and
then to permit the importation of the foreign
edition for sale would be simply to give with
the other. II would be a tub with a hole in
it, and as absurd as for publisher 10 grant
to "A subscriptiOn-bOOk agent the exclusive
territory of the state of Ohio for the sale Of
General Grants Memoirs" and then TO
permit the invasion OF that territory by
agents from neighbOring States. This clause,
moreover, has a strong precedent in the
nOn-impOrtatiOn clause in the present dOmes-
tic Copyright law. The importation Of Tor
eign editions Of copyright American books
is not permitted, Just as the importation Of
rauchnitZ editions OF English books is not
permitted in England. since those editions
only possess rights for the continent Of
Europe. The Copyright bill permits the
importation Of packages of two copies for
use and not for sale. This will provide
for the wants of colleges and lilrari-
ans who desire English editions Of
these copyright works, but interna-
tional copyright will soon bring about
identity Of editions and then English edi-
tons will no longer be desirable.
In behalf of the American Copyright
League, | respectfully request you 10 give
your vote and influence in favor of the en-
tire copyright bill, the passage Of which
will relieve our country from the imputa-
ton which now rests upon 1t Of sanctIOning
officially the plumber OF foreigners for the
assumed benefit Of our own people, though,
rs we believe, and know, very much 10 our
own injury, moral, intellectual and COM
mercial.
If il be not wrong TO take the fruits Of the
daily toll OF a class of professional men for
ones own pecuniary gain, nothing is wrong.
Ii is idle to say that IL Is right because il is
legal. Many acts now criminal were once
legal. The question Is, ought not what is
recognized TO be wrong in this instance 10
De made illcgaly The responsibility rests
primarily upon Congress. One Of the con-
stitutional objects OF the Government is TO
establish justice" That the establish
plent of justice in this matter would ope-
rate In favor of the rich and against the
poor is demagogic and absurd. Justice itself
is the strongest defence OF the poor.
For tha Hloo.l and skin