St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-09
PROPERTY WORDS.

1t was with keen prophetic vision. as
he stood gazing down the vista of time,
that JOB asserted there should be no
end to the making of books. But it re-
NAMED for Judge of the supreme court
Of the United States to solemnly affirm
that there should be no limit to the coin
Ing of new words, but that the coiner
was entitled to monopoly of his crea-
ton. The decision in question was
rendered IN case before Judge BRAD
LEY where the plaintiff had copyrighted
the word ''celluloid'' as a trademark,
and which was claimed to be q noun Of
the plaintiffs own creation. The de-
cisien is to the effect that the coiner OF
a new word may copyright it and thus
make 1t his private property, and that
no person can use said word or any imi-
tation thereof. What a pity it is that
all the slang words of the day
had not been copyrighted and thus have
limited their use to the inventors. We
little realize how our own language Is
growing, or to what extent it will grow
at the present ratio of increase. TWEEN
ty-tve years ag0there were 5000 words
In the English language, which, at that
time, was thought to be wonderful ag-
gregation. To-day there are over 200
600, and unless Judge BRADLEY's decis-
ION operates as check, it is possible that
twenty-five years hence they will num-
Der half million. And yet, when we
come to think of it, there are but COM
parativeiy few useless words in our Ian
guage. Most of those that have been
added within the last twenty-five years
have been coined in consequence of
new demands in various branches of
literature, as well as in the realm of Or
binary personal intercourse. The indi-
cations point to continuous growth,
or did point that way until Judge BRAD
LEY's decision changed the aspect of
affairs by shutting off our supply of
vocal novelties and conveniences. We
very much question whether Judge
BRADLEY's law will stand the test of
final judicial determination. The COM
mercial clause of the constitution ought
TO be elastic enough to knock it out,
The necessities of commerce absolutely
require the coming of new words ever
so often, and the idea of making chattei
property Of words is as repuisive to the
American mind as it is to make prop
erty of human beings. The only record
We have of an attempt to get corner
in words was during the building of the
tower of Babel, and everybody knows
what disastrous results followed.
American citizenship and American
freedom will count for nothing if
every individual is not left free to ap-
propriate such words as best suit his
purposes. Just imagine the condition
Of affairs if somebody should get a
trust on 'cuss" words-what dearth of
profanity there would be. To some
people life would not be worth living
with the escape valve of profanity shut
off. On the other hand, what comfort
would the praying man find in address,
ing the throne of grace if he were in
constant terror Of using language that
was not lawful. of supplying words
that were the exclusive property of
some one else, and for the use of which
he would be liable to be mulcted In
damages! If the BRADLEY theory
holds good, the American people will
have to discard their dictionaries and
their encyclopedias and go back to the
language OF primitive times. Or, at the
best, only the rich could afford the
luxury OF using new-c0ined words, for
the poor could not afford to pay the roy
atty on them.