New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-07-20
THE COpYRJGH ACT IN ENGLAND.

I'm view of the exceedingly ungraclouS lOhe
adopted by the English press, almost WitAouo
exception, in commenting upon the Copyright
Act passed by the last Congress, there was real
occasion for such an expression of friendly sentl-
ment rs came from the British Society OF Au-
thors on Thursday evening. 1t has been
matter of profound regret to Americans VINO
labored to secure the Copyright Act that 1t was
apparently not appreciated by those who most
would benefit from it's concessions. 1t may be
that the bill! is not so liberal as it might have
been, but it certainly protects the foreign au-
thor in whatever arrangement he is able to
make for the publication of his works here
lie is put in word upon the same footing
as the American author, and it was felt by many
that this was as much as he was entitled 10
ask. All of us, even those who were disposed
10 90 further, felt that substantial justice had
been done and were shocked, not to say dis
gusted. at the way our voluntary concessions
were received To be told, as 1.-The London
Times" tod us, that where ten votes had been
obtained for the Copyright Act by consdela-
tons of honesty and fair dealing thirty had been
got by the prospect of advantage to American
authors and sixty by the desire OF legislators
to protect paper manufacturers and to curry
favor with trades unions seemed anything but
decent way of acknowledging measure which
drew many thousands of American dollars annu-
ally to reward British learning and talent.
Congress did not understand that the surren-
der of a large and remunerative publishing bus-
ness would be a condition of British goodwill
toward a scheme of justice to the British au-
thor. and we suspect it is lucky for the BRITISH
author that it didn't The spirit that would
dictate such condition is not likely to attract
much consideration. It's force, indeed, is alto
gether repeant. Looked at purely as matter
of morals, there can be no possible reason why
an American Congress should be asked to take
away profitable trade from American publish
crs and printers for the advantage of foreign
ers, nor why a foreign author, if he wishes to
sell his wares in the American market should
not be required to introduce them through an
American publisher. If the author is protected
be and the nation he represents ought to be
amply satisfied. II is his work, not the ink,
paper, types and binding, that has the moral
claim On the score OF convenience there was
no objection to the urging of free trade in
books. 1t was and is worth considering. There
are many Of us who might favor it. But to
demand it as a right is absurd, and to refuse a
courteous acknowledgment of an act of justice
to authors because an act of favor to paper
makers and printers does not accompany it is
an exhibition of sullenness and greed that does
small credit to the British press.
We are happy to accept the speeches made
at the authors dinner as evidence that they do
not share the views 50 churlishly presented by
the press. The Copyright Act ought to serve
good purpose in warming the sentiment Of
fraternity which association and kindred interest
are developing between Americans and Eng
lishmen every day. 1t is n pity that this scnti
ment cannot be more frequently reflected in
British controversial literature. The incident
we have been commenting on has done a good
deal to annoy and disgust Americans and with
reason. When Nation, not less than IN in
dividual, has done what it regards as volun-
tary act of goodwill and fair play an act
which, even if it does not go the full length
desired by those concerned in its advantages,
does at all events benefit them largely and
certainly, it does not seem appropriate that they
should withhold an expression of friendly re-
gard, and still less that they should actually
gr,lmbIe and imply that it was inspired by
selfish motive.