Court Opinion

ID: 9841614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 19:59:46.932568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:23.372763
License: Public Domain

Mr Justice Thompson,
dissenting.
It is matter of regret with me, at any time to dissent from an opinion pronounced by a majority of this court, and where my mind is left balancing, after a full examination of the case, my habitual respect for the opinion of my brethren may justify a surrender of my own. But where no such apology is left to me to rest upon, it becomes;a duty to adhere to my own opinion; and I shall proceed to assign the reasons which have led me to a conclusion different from that at which a Majority of the court has arrived.
It is unnecessary for me to state any thing more with respect to the bill and answer, than barely to observe that the complainants in the court below rest their claim, both upon the statutory and the common law right. The bill charges, that all the provisions of the acts of congress have been complied with; that every thing has been done which was required by those acts in order to entitle them to the benefit thereof; and that if it were otherwise, the orator, Henry Wheaton, has, as the author of said reports, the property in the copy of the same, and the sole right to eniov and dispose of the same.
*669It would be improper in the present stage of this cause to examine the evidence which was before the court, below, touching certain questions of fact which it is alleged are required by the acts of congress in order to entitle the complainants to the benefit of those acts, have been complied with. An issue has been directed to inquire into those matters. Nor is it deemed necessary to examine whether the publication of the Condensed Reports by the defendants, is a violation of the complainants’ copyright, if they have complied with all the requisites of the acts of congress. This would seem necessarily implied, by the ordering of the issue; for such inquiries would be useless, if the right secured under those acts has not been violated.
I shall therefore confine myself to an examination of the common law right, and the effect and operation of the acts of congress upon such right.
I think I may assume as a proposition not to be questioned, that in England, prior to the statute of Anne, the right of an author to the benefit and profit of his work, is recognized by the common law. No case has been cited on the argument, and none has fallen under my observation, at all throwing in doubt this general proposition. Whenever the question has been there agitated, it has been in connection with the operation of the statute upon this right. The case of Miller v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, decided in the year 1769, was the first determination in the court of king’s bench upon the common law right of literary property. In that case the broad question is stated and examined, whether the copy of a book or literary composition belongs to the author by the common law; and three of the judges, including Lord Mansfield, decided in the affirmative. .Mr Justice Yeates dissented. But I am not aware that upon this abstract question a contrary decision has ever been made in England. This would seem to be sufficient to put at rest that general question, and render it unnecessary to go into a very particular examination of the reasons and grounds upon which the decision was founded. The elaborate examination bestowed upon the question by the judges in that case, has brought into view, on both sides of the question, the main arguments of which the point is susceptible. The great principle on which the author’s right rests, is, that it is the *670fruit or production of his- own labour, and which may, by the labour of the faculties of the mind, establish a right of property, as. well as by-the faculties of the body; and rt is difficult to. perceive any Well founded objection to suc.h a claim of right. It is-founded upon the soundest principles of justice, equity and public policy. Blackstone, in his Commentaries, 2d-vol. 405, has succinctly stated-the principle, .that when- a man, by'the exertion of his rational powers, has produced an original work, he seems to have clearly a right to dispose of that identical work as he pleases; and' any attempt to vary the disposition he has made of it, appears to be an invasion of that right. That the identity-of a-literary composition consists entirely in the' sentiment and the language. The same conception, clothed in thy same words, must necessarily be thé same composition; and whatever method be taken to exhibit that composition to thé ear or to the eye of another, by recital, by writing,- or by printing, in any number of copies, or at any period of time; it is always the identical work of the. author which is so exhibited; and no other man, it has been thought, can "have a right to exhibit it, especially for profit, without the author’s consent. The origin of this right is not probably to be. satisfactorily ascertained, and indeed if it could, it might be considered an objection -to its existence as a common law right; but-from the time. Of -the invention of printing, in the early part of the fifteenth century, such a right seems to- have been recognised. The historical account of the recognition of the right, is.to be collected from the discussions in Miller v. Taylor. The Stationers Company was incorporated in the year 1556, and from that time to the year 1640 the crown exercised an unlimited authority over the press, which was enforced by the summary process of search, confiscation and-imprisonment, given to the Stationers Company, and executed by the then supreme jurisdiction of the star chamber. In the year 1640 the star chamber was abolished; and the existence of copyrights before that period, upon principles of usage, can only be looked for in the Stationers Company, or the star chamber or acts of state; and the evidence upon this point, says Mr Justice Wills, is liable.to little suspicion. It was indifferent to the views of government whether the property of an innocent book licensed, was open or private property.
*671It was certainly against the power of the crown to allow it. as private property, without .being protected by any royal privilege. It could be done only on principles of private.justice, moral fitness and public convenience, which, when applied .to a new subject, make common law-, without a precedent; much more when received and, approved by usage. And in this case of Miller v. Taylor, it was found by the special verdict, “ that before the reign of her late majesty, queen Anne, it was usual to purchase; from authors, the perpetual copyright of their books, and to assign the same from hand to hand for valuable consideration, and to make the same the subject of family settlements, for the provision of wives and children.” This usage is evidence of the common law, and shows that the copyright was considered and treated as property, transferable from party to party; and property, too, of a permanent nature, suitable for family settlement and provisions.
Common law, says Lord Coke, 1 Inst. 1, 2, is sometimes called right, common right, common justice. And Lord Mansfield says, the common law is drawn from the principles of right and wrong, the fitness of things, convenience and policy. And it is upon these principles that the copyright;of authors is protected. After the year 1640, when the press became subject, to license, the various ordinances and acts of parliament referred to in Miller v. Taylor, and collected in Maugham’s, treatise on the Law of Literary Property, p. 13 — 16, necessarily imply, and presuppose, the existence of a common law right in the author.
The common law, says an eminent jurist, 2 Kent’s Comm. 471, includes those principles, usages and rules of action,- applicable to the government and security of person and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the. legislature. A great proportion of the rules and maxims, which constitute the immense code- oi the common law, grew into use by gradual adoption, and received, from time to time, the sanction of the courts of justice, without any legislative act or interference.' It was the application of the dictates of natural justice, and, of cultivated reason, to particular cases. In the" júst language of sir Matthew Hale, the common law of England is not the pro^ duct of the.wisdom of some one man, or society of men, in any *672one age, but of the wisdom, counsel, experience and observation of many ages of wise and observing men. And, in accordance with these sound principles, and as applicable to the subject of copyright, are the remarks”of Mr Christian, in his notes to Blackstone’s Commentaries, 2 Bl. Comm. 06, and note. Nothing, says he, is more erroneous, than the practice of referring the origin of moral rights, and the system of natural equity, to the-savage state,-which is supposed to have preceded civilized establishments, in which literary composition, and, of consequence, the right to it, could have no existence. But the true mode of ascertaining a moral right, is to inquire whether it is such as the reason, the cultivated reason of mankind. must necessarily assent to. No proposition seems moré conformable to that criterion, than that every one should enjoy the. reward of his labour, the harvest where he has sown, or the fruit of the tree which he. has planted. Whether literary property is sui generis, or under whatever denomination of rights it may be classed, it seems founded upon the same principle of general utility to society, which is the basis of all other moral rights, and obligations. Thus considered, an author’s copyright ought to be esteemed an invaluable right, established in sound reason and abstract morality.
It is unnecessary, for the purpose of showing my views upon this branch of the case, to add any thing more. In my judgment, every principle of justice, equity, morality, fitness and sound policy concurs, in protecting the literary labours of men, to the same extent that property acquired by manual labour is protected. The objections to the admission of the common law-right of authors, are generally admitted to be summed up, in all their force and strength, by Mr Justice Yeates, in the case of Miller v. Taylor. These objections may be classed under two headsthe one founded upon the nature of- the property or subject matter of the right claimed; and the other on the presumed abandonment of the right by the author’s publication.
Thé.fir.st appears to me to be too subtle and metaphysical to command the assent of any one, of to be adopted as the ground of deciding the question. It seems to be supposed that the right claimed is to the ideas contained, in the book. The claim, says Mr Justice Yeates, is .to the style and ideas of the author’s composition; and it is a well established maxim, that *673nothing can be an object of ..property which has not a borporal substance. The' property claimed is all ideal; a set of ideas which have no bounds or marks whatever- — nothing that is capable of a visible possession — nothing that can sustain aitay one of the qualities or incidents of property. Their whole existence is in the mind alone. Incapable of any other modes of acquisition or enjoyment than by mental possession or apprehension ; safe and invulnerable from their own immateriality, no trespass can reach them, no tort affect them; no fraud or violence diminish or damage them. Yet these are the phantoms which the author would grasp and confine to himself; and these are what the defendant is charged with having robbed the plaintiff of.
He asks, can sentiments themselves (apart from the paper on which they are contained)- be taken in execution for a debt or if the author commits treason or felony, or is outlawed, can the ideas be forfeited ? Can sentiments be seized; or, by any act whatever, be vested in the crown? If they cannot be seized, the sole right of publishing them cannot be confined to the author. How strange and singular, says he, must this extraordinary kind of property be, which cannot be visibly possessed, forfeited or seized, nor is susceptible of any external injury, nor, consequently, of any specific or possible remedy.
These, and many other similar declarations are made by Mr Justice Yeates, to illustrate his view of the nature of a copyright. And he seems to treat the, question, as if the claim was to a mere idea, not embodied or exhibited in any tangible form or shape. No such pretension has ever been set up, that I am aware of, by any advocate of the right to literary property. And this view of it would hardly, deserve a serious notice, had it not been taken by a distinguished judge. Lord Mansfield, in the case of Miller v. Taylor, in defining the nature of the right or copyright, says, “ I use the word copy, in the technical sense in which that name or term has been used for ages, to signify an incorporeal right to the sole printing and publishing of something intellectual, communicated by letters-;” and this is the sense in which I understand the term copyright always to be used, when spoken of as property.
The other objection urged by Mr Justice Yeates, that the publication by the author is an abandonment of the exclusive *674right, rests upon more plausible grounds, but is equally destitute of solidity.
This would seem, according to his view of the case, the main point in the cause. The general question, he says, is, whether, after a voluntary and general publication of an author’s work by himself, or by his authority, the author has a sole and perpetual property in that work, so as to give him a right to confine every subsequent publication to himself, or his assigns, for ever.
. And he lays down this general proposition. That the right of publication must for ever depend on the claimant’s property-in the thing to be published. Whilst the subject of publication continues his own exclusive property, he will so long have the sole and perpetual right to publish it. But whenever that property ceases, or by any act or event becomes common, the right of publication will be equally common. The particular terms in. which Mr Justice Yeates states his proposition, are worthy of notice. He puts the case upon its being a general publication, the meaning of which undoubtedly is, that the publication is without any restriction expressed or implied, as to the use to be made of it by the party into whose hands it might come, bypurchase or otherwise. Unless suchwas his meaning, the proposition, I prfesume, no one will contend, can be maintained. .. Suppose aii express contract made with a party who shall purchase a book, that he shall not republish it; this surely would be binding upon him.
So, if the bookseller should give a like notice of the author’s claim, and a purchase' of a book made without any express stipulation not to republish, the law would imply an assent to the condition. And any circumstances from which such an undertaking could be reasonably inferred, would lead to the .same legal consequences. The nature of the property, and the general purposes for which it is published and sold, show the use which is to be made of it. The usual and common object. which a person has in view in the purchase of a book is for the instructiori, information or entertainment to be derived from it, and not for republication of the work. It is the use of it for these purposes which is implied in the sale and purchase. And this use is in subordination to the antecedent and higher right of the author; and comes strictly within the maxim, sic utere *675tuo lit alienam non kedas. But the case is not left to rest on any implied notice of the author’s claim, and the conditions on which he makes it public. This is contained on the title page of the very book purchased, and cannot be presumed to escape the notice of the purchaser. It is there, in terms, announced, that the author claims the right of publication; and whoever purchases, therefore, does it with notice of such claim, and is bound to use it in subordination thereto. Mr Justice Yeates admits, that every man is éntitled to the fruits of his.own labour; but that he can be entitled to it only, subject to the general rights of mankind, and the general rules of property ; and that there must bé a limitation to such right, otherwise the rights of others are infringed. The force of such limitation upon the right, is not readily perceived. If the right exists, it is a common law right, growing out of the natural justice of the case; being the result of a man’s own labour. He thinks the statute of Anne fixes a just limitation. .But suppose no statute had been passed on the subject; where would have been the limitation ? The right existing, who would have authority to say where it should end 1 ■ It must necessarily be without limitation, and it is'no infringement of the rights of others. They enjoy it for the purpose intended, and according to the nature of the property. The purchaser of the book has. a right to all the benefit resulting from the information or amusement he can derive from it. And if, in consequence thereof, he can write a book on the same subject, he has a right so. to do. But this is a very different use of the property from the taking and publishing the very language and sentiment of the author; which constitute the identity of his work:
Mr Justice Yeates puts the effect of a publication upon the ground of intent in the author. The act of publication, says he, when voluntarily done by the author, is virtually and necessarily a gift to the public. And he must be deemed to have so intended it. But no such intention can surely be inferred, when the contrary intention is inscribed upon the first page of the book, which cannot escape notice.
The case of Percival v. Phipps, 2 Ves. and Beam. 19, recognises the implied, prohibition against publishing the work of another, arising from the very nature of the property. It was held in that case, that private letters, having the character *676of literary composition, were within the spirit of the act protecting literary property, and that by sending a letter, the writer did not give the receiver authority to publish it; and this is the doctrine of Lord Hardwicke in Pope v. Carl, 2 Atk. 342, where it is said that familiar letters may form a literary composition, in which the author retains his copyright, and does not, by sending them to the person to whom they are addressed, authorise him or a third person to use them for the purpose of profit, by publishing them against the interest and intention of the author. That by sending the letter, though he parts with-the property of the paper, he does not part with the property of copyright in the composition.
But how stands the case, with respect to the effect of publication by the author, according to Mr Justice Yeates’s own rule. He says, “ in all abandonments of such kind of property, two circumstances are necessary,” an actual relinquishing the possession, and an intention to relinquish it. ‘That the author’s name being inserted in the title page is no reason against the abandonment; for many of our best and noblest authors have published their works from more generous views than pecuniary profit. Some have written for fame, and the benefit of mankind. That the omission of the author’s name can make no difference; for if the property be absolutely his, he has no occasion to add his name to the title page. He cannot escape, it seems, from calling the copyright property, although a mere idea; and resorts again to his favourite theory, that it has no indicia, no distinguishing marks to denote his proprietary interest therein; and hard, says he, would be the law, that should adjudge a man guilty of a crime, when he had no possibility of knowing that he was doing the least wrong to any individual. That he could not know who was the proprietor of these intellectual ideas, they not having any ear-piarks upon them, or tokens of a particular proprietor.
If, as Mr Justice Yeates admits, it is a question of intention whether the author meant to abandon his work to the public, and relinquish all private or individual claims.to it, no possible doubt can exist as to the .conclusion in the present case. Would a jury hesitate a moment upon the question under the evidence before the court? The right set up and stamped upon the title page of the book, shuts, the door against any infer*677ence, that the publication was intended to be a gift to the public.
Mr Justice tes admits, that so long as a literary composition is in man .ipt, and remains under the sole dominion of the author, it is his exclusive property. It would seem, therefore, that the idea when once reduced to writing, is susceptible of identity, and becomes the subject, of property. B.ut .property without the right to use it, is empty sound, says Mr Justice Aston in Miller v. Taylor. And, indeed, it would seem a mere mockery for the law to recognize any thing-as' property, which the owner could not use safely and securely for the purposes for which it was intended, unless interdicted, by the principles of morality or public policy.
It is not necessary that I should go into any particular examination of the construction of the statute of Anne, or to what extent it may affect the common law right of authors in England; because, as I shall hereafter show, that statute was never considered in force in Pennsylvania. The mere common law right, uninfluenced by that statute, is alone drawn in question under this branch of the case. And the decision in the case of Miller v. Taylor, would seem to put that question at rest in England; at that day. Mr Justice Yeates, in aid of his opinion, relied much upon that statute; arguing that from the title, which is an “act for the encouragement of learning by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors- or purchasers of such copies during the times therein mentioned and from the provision in the act, that the sole right should be vested, &c. for twenty-one years and no longer; the right was created, and limited by the act, and did not rest, upon the common law. The other three judges, however, maintained, that an author’s right was not derived from the statute, but that he had an original perpetual common law right and property in his work, and that the statute was only cumulative, and giving additional remedies for a violation of the right. That the preamble in the act proceeds updn the ground of a right of property in the author having been violated; and that the act was intended as a confirmation of such right. And that from the remedy enacted against the violation of the right being only temporary, it might be argued, that it afforded an implication, that there existed no right but what was *678secured by the act. To guard against which, there is an express saving in the ninth section of the act. “ Provided that nothing in this act contained, shall extend or be construed to extend either to prejudice or confirm any right, that the said universities or any of them, or any person or persons, have or claim to have to the printing or reprinting, any book or copy already- printed or hereafter to be printed.” That the words any right, manifestly meant any other right, than the term secured by the act. It may be observed here, that whatever may be the just weight to be given to the term “ vested” and the words “ no longer,” as used in the statute of Anne, and so much relied on by Mr Justice Yeates, have, no application to our acts of congress; no such term or provision being used. A -writ of error was brought in this case of Miller v. Taylor, but afterwards abandoned, and the law was considered settled, until called in question in Donaldson v. Beckett, 4 Burr. 2408, which came before the house of lords in the year 1774, upon an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery, founded upon the judgment-in Miller v. Taylor.
Upon this appeal certain questions were propounded to the twelve judges. Lord Mansfield, however gave no opinion, it being very unusual, as the reporter states, from reasons of delicacy, for a peer to support his own judgment upon appeal to the house of lords. This statement necessarily implies, however, that he had not changed his. opinion. There were, therefore, eleven judges who voted upon the questions.
One of the questions propounded was : whether, at common law, an author of any book or literary composition, had the sole right of first printing and publishing the same for sale, and might bring an action against any person who printed, published and sold the same without his consent.
Upon this question ten voted in the affirmative, and one in the negative.
Another question was : if the author had such right originally, did the law take it away, upon his printing and publishing such book or literary composition, and might any person, after-wards, reprint and sell, for his own benefit, such book or literary composition, against the will of the author.
Upon this.question seven were in the negative, and four in the affirmative.
*679The vote upon these two questions settled the- point, that, by the common law, the author of any literary composition, and his assigns, had the sole right of printing and publishing the same in perpetuity.
Another question propounded was: if an action would have lain, at common law, is it taken away by the statute of Anne 1 and is an author, by the said statute, precluded from every remedy, except on the foundation of the statute, and on the terms and conditions prescribed thereby 1
Upon this question, six voted in the affirmative, and five in the negative ; and it will be perceived, that if Lord Mansfield had voted on this question, and in conformity with his opinion in Miller v. Taylor, the judges would have been equally divided.
That the law in England has not been considered as settled, in conformity with the vote on this last question, is very certain. For it is the constant practice, in chancery, to grant injunctions to restrain printers from publishing the works of others, which practice can only be "sustained on the ground that the penalties given by the statute, are not the only remedy that can be resorted to. In Miller v. Taylor, Lord Mansfield says, the whole jurisdiction exercised by the court of chancery, since 1710, the date of the statute of Anne, against pirates of copies, is an authority that authors had a property antecedent, to which the act gives a temporary additional security. It can stand upon no other foundation. And in the case of Beckford v. Hood, 7 Term Rep. 616, it was decided, that an author whose work is pirated before the expiration of the time limited in the statute, may maintain an action on the. case for damages, against the offending party. Lord Kenyon says, the question is, whether the right of property being vested in authors for certain periods,,the common law remedy for a violation of it, does not attach within the time limited by the act of parliament. . Within those periods, the act says, that the author shall'have the sole right and liberty of printing, &c. Thus the statute having vested that right in the author, the common law gives the remedy by action in the case for viola-tion of it; and that the meaning of the act in creating the-penalties, was to give an accumulative remedy. And in this all the judges concurred. And Mr Justice Grose ob*680serves, that in the great case of Miller v. Taylor, Mr Justice Yeates gave his opinion against the common law right of authors; but he was decidedly of opinion, that an exclusive right of property, was vested by the statute for the time limited; and he says, that by the decision in the house of lords of Donaldson v. Beckett, the common law right of action is not considered as taken away by the statute of Anne, but that it could not be exercised beyond the time limited by that statute: and it is worthy of notice that this action on .the .case, for damages, was sustained, although, the work was not entered at Stationers Hall, nor the author’s name affixed to the first publication. This, Lord Kenyon observes, was to serve as a notice and warning to the public, that none might ignorantly incur the penalties and forfeitures given against such as pirate the works of others. But calling on a party who has injured the civil property of another, for a remedy in damages, cannot properly fall under the description of a forfeiture or penalty.
From this view of the law, as it stands in England, it is very clear that, previous to the statute of Anne, the perpetual common law right of authors, was undisputed. That after,that statute, in the case of Miller v. Taylor, it was held, that this common law right remained unaffected by the statute, which only gave a cumulative remedy. That the subsequent case of Donaldson v. Beckett, limited the right to the times mentioned in the statute. But that for all violations of the right during that lime, all the common law remedies continued, although no entry of the work at Stationers Hall had been made, according to the provisions of the statute. Such entry being necessary, only for the purpose of subjecting the party violating the right, to the penalties given by the act.
I do not deem it necessary particularly to inquire, whether, as an abstract question, the same reasons do not exist for the protection of mechanical iuventions, as the production of mental labour. The inquiry is not, whether it would have been wise to have recognized an exclusive right to mechanical inventions. It is enough, when we are inquiring what the law is, and not what it ought to have been, to find that, no such principle ever has been recognized by any judicial decision. The argument was urged with great earnestness by Mr Justice Yeates in Miller v. Taylor, but repudiated by Lord Mansfield and the other *681judges. With respect to copyrights, however, the law has been considered otherwise ; and the original common law right fully established, though modified in some respects by the statute of Anne.
I shall proceed, now, to some notice of the light in which copyrights have been viewed in this country.
It appears from the journals of the old congress. (8 Journals 257), that this question was brought before that body by sundry papers and memorials on the subject of literary properly; and which were referred to a committee, of which Mr Madison was one; and on the 27th of May 1783, the following resolution was reported and adopted.
Resolved, that it.be recommended to the several states, to secure to the authors or publishers of any new books not hitherto printed, being citizens of the United States, and to their executors, administrators and assigns, the copyright of such" books for a certain time, not less than fourteen years from the first publication ; and to secure to the said authors, if they shall survive the term first mentioned; and to their executors, administrators and assigns, the copyright of such books for-another term or timé, not less than fourteen years; such copy or exclusive-right of printing, publishing and vending the same, to be secured to the original authors or publishers, their executors, administrators and assigns, by such laws and such restrictions, as to the several states may seem proper.”
This right is here treated and dealt with as property already existing; and not as creating any thing which had previously no being. It is spoken of as something tangible, that might pass to executors and administrators, and transferable by assignment. And the recommendation to the states was, to pass laws to secure such right.
It must be presumed, that congress understood the light in which this subject was viewed in the mother country. And it is deserving of notice, that Mr Madison, one of the committee, afterwards wrote the number in the Federalist, where this subject is discussed; and where it is expressly asserted, that this has been adjudged in England to be a right at common law.
And it is worthy of remark also, that no mention Í3 here made of any right in mechanical inventions: and although the arts and sciences are connected in the same-clause ih the con*682stitution, and placed under the legislative power of congress, it does not, by any means follow, that they were considered as standing on the same footing.
Several of the states had already passed laws on this subject; and many others, in compliance with the recommendation of congress, did the same.
The state of Massachusetts, as early as March 1783, passed a-law, entitled, “an act for the purpose of securing to authors, the exclusive right and benefit of publishing their literary productions for twenty-one' years.” The preamble to this act shows, in a strong and striking maimer, the.views entertained at that day in this enlightened state, of the value of this right. “Whereas, the improvement of knowledge, the progress of civilization, the public weal of the community, and the advancement of human happiness greatly depend on the efforts of learned and ingenious persons, in the various arts and sciences; as the principal encouragement such persons can have, to make great and beneficial exertions of this nature, must exist in the legal security of the fruits.of their study and industry, to themselves; and as such security is one of the natural fights of all men, there being no property more peculiarly a man’s own, than that, which is produced by the labour of his mind: therefore, to encourage learned and ingenious persons to write useful books, for the benefit of mankind, be it enacted,” &c. The act then proceeds to declare, that all books, treatises and other literary works, &c. shall be the sole property of the author or authors, being subjects of the United States of America, their heirs-and assigns, for the full and complete term of twenty-one years from the date of theirfirst publication. And certain penalties are affixed to a violation-of the right, with a proviso, that the act. shall not be construed to extend in favour, or for the benefit of any author, or subject of any other of the. United States, until the state of which such author is a subject, shall have passed similar laws for securing to auihors the exclusive right and benefit of publishing their literary productions. 1 Laws Mass. 94.
This act recognizes in the fullest and most unqualified manner,Aire natural right-which an author has to the productioirs and labour of his own mind. And it is .worthy of notice, that the act does not recognize as a natural right, or in any manner *683provide for the protection of mechanical inventions; thereby showing the distinction between mental and manual labour in the view of that legislature, although it is-now attempted to put them on the same footing.
The state of Connecticut had, previously, in the same year (January 1783), passed an act for the encouragement of literature and genius, containing the following preamble: “ whereas it is perfectly agreeable to the principles of natural justice and equity, that every author should be secured in receiving the profits that may arise from the sale of his works ; and such security may encourage men of learning and genius to publish their writings, which may do honour to their country, and service to mankind.” Certain provisions are then made for the security of such right, which it is unnecessary heré to be particularly noticed.
There is a like proviso as ir^-the Massachusetts act: that the benefit of the law is not to extend to authors, inhabitants of, or residing in other states, until such states have passed similar, laws. Statutes of Conn. 474. This, law is also confined to literary productions, and in no manner extending to mechanical labours.
In the colony of New York, in the year 1786, a law “ to promote literature” was passed, reciting, “whereas, it is agreeable to the principles of natural equity and justice, that every author should be secured in receiving'the profits that may arise from the sale of his works ; and such security may encourage persons of learning and genius to publish, their writings, which may do honour to their countiy, and service to mankind;” and then making provision, for securing to authors the sole right of printing, publishing and selling their works for fourteen years. With a proviso to the fourth' section of the act, recognizing a common law right; but leaving it open and unaffected in cases nót coming within the act: viz., ■“ provided, that nothing in this act shall extend to, affect, prejudice or confirm the rights -which any person may have to the printing or publishing of any books or pamphlets at common law, in cases not mentioned in tliis act.”
The state of Virginia also, in the year 1785, passed a similar law, for securing to authors of literary works, an exclusive .property therein, for a limited time. 1 Rev. Code 534. Like *684laws for the same purpose were passed by other states, which are not necessary here to be noticed; enough having been-referred to, to show the light in which, literary property was viewed in this country; and that such laws were passed, with a-view to protect and secure a pre-existing right, founded on the eternal rules and principles of natural right and justice, and recognized by the common law.
But under the existing governments of the United States, before the adoption of the present constitution, adequate protection could not be given to authors throughout .the United States, by any general law. It depended on the legislatures of the several states ; and this led to the provisions in the present constitution, giving .to congress power “ to promote the progress of science and the' useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Constit. art. 1, sect. 8.
It.has been argued at the bar, that as the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts, is here united in the same clause in the constitution, the rights of authors and inventors were considered as standing on the same footing ; but this, I think, is a non sequitur. This article is tobe construed distributively, and must have been so understood ; for when congress came to execute this power by legislation,, the subjects are kept distinct, and very different provisions are made respecting them. All the laws relative to inventions, purport to be acts to promote the progress óf the useful arts. They do not use any language which implies or presupposes any existing prior right to be secured; but clearly imply that the whole-exclusive right is created by the law, and ends with the expiration of the patent. The first law, passed in the year 1790, 1 Story’s Ed. 80, requires that the specification shall be so particular, as not only to distinguish the invention or discovery from other things before known and used, but. also to enable a workman, or other, person, skilled in the art or manufacture, to make, construct, or use the same, to the end that the public may have the full benefit thereof, after the expiration of the patent term. This is the consideration demanded by the public, for the protection during the time mentioned in the patent; and the books furnish no case, that I am aware of, where an ac*685tion has been attempted to be sustained upon any supposed common law right of the inventor.'
But the case is quite different with respect to copyrights. All the laws on this subject purport to be made for securing, to authors and proprietors such copyright. They presuppose the existence of a right, which is to be secured, and not a right originally created by the act. The security provided by the act is for a limited time. But there .is no intimation that at the expiration of that time- the copy becomes compon, as in the case of an invention. The right, at the expiration of ttte time limited in the acts of congress, is left to the common law protection, without the additional security thrown around it by the statutes; and stands upon the same footing as it did before the statutes were passed. The protection for a limited time:by the aid-of penalties, against the violators of the right, proceeds upon the ground that the author, within that time, can so multiply his work, and reap- such profits therefrom,, as to enable him to rest upon his common law right, without the extraordinary aid of penal laws.
In the Federalist, No. 43, written by Mr Madison, who reported the resolution referred to, in the old congress, this clause in the constitution is under consideration, and the writer observes : that the utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged in Great Britain, to be a right at common law. The right to useful inventions seems, with equal reason, to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides, in both cases, with the claims, of individuals. The states cannot separately make effectual provision foí éi'her of the cases; and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, bylaws passed at the instance of congress.
Although it is here said, that the right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors, as the. copyright to authors : yet it is not pretended that the common law equally recognises them. But the contrary is necessarily implied, when it is expressly said that the copyright has been adjudged to be a common law right, btit is silent as to inventors’ rights.
The common law right of authors is expressly recognised by Mr Justice Story in his Commentaries. In noticing this *686article in the constitution, he says, “ this power did not exist under the confederation, and its utility does not seem to have been questioned.- The copyright of authors in their works had, before the revolution, been decided in Great. Britain to be a common law right, and it was regulated and limited under statutes passed by parliament upon that subject.” 3 Story’s Com. 48. If these statutes do not affect the right in the case now before the court, it remains and is'to be viewed as a common law right.
The judge in the court below, who decided-this case,-seems to place much reliance on what he considers a doubt, suggested by Chancellor Kent, as to the existence of the common law right. Let us see what he does say. “ It was,” says he, “ for some time the prevailing and better opinion in England, that authors had an exclusive copyright at common law, as permanent as the property of an estate; and that the statute of Anne, protecting by penalties that right for fourteen years, was only an additional sanction, and made in affirmance of the common law. This point came, at last to' be questioned, and it became the subject of a very serious .litigation in the-court of king’s bench. It was decided in Miller v. Taylor, 1769, that every author had a,common law right in.perpetuity, independent of statute, to the exclusive printing and publishing his original compositions. The court was not unanimous, and the subsequent decision of the house of lords, in Donaldson v. Beckett, in February 1774, settled this very litigated question against the opinion of the king’s bench, by establishing, that the common law right of action,’ if any existed, could not be exercised beyond the time limited by the statute of Anne, 2 Com. 375, second ed. It is here fully admitted, that by the decision in Miller v. Taylor, every author had a common law right in perpetuity, to the publishing of his original composition. And, if it was intended to intimate, that the subsequent decision, in Donaldson v. Beckett, overruled this decision, as to the common law right; I apprehend, this must bé a mistake, according to the report of the case in 4 Burr. I understand the decision then was, by ten of the judges, that-at common law an author had the sole right of first printing and publishing his work, and by seven judges to four, that such right continued after his first publication.. It is true, it *687was decided by six to five of the judges, that the common law right of action could not be exercised beyond the time limited by the statute of Anne, But with the construction of this statute, we have no concern, if it was not in force in Pennsylvania. The settlement of the common law right is the material point, and that is admitted, by Chancellor Kent, to .have been decided in favour of the author. There is certainly considerable obscurity in the report of this case, as to how far it has modified the . common law remedy: this arises probably from the manner in which the questions were propounded by the house of lords to the judges.
I do not perceive how it becomes necessary in this case to decide the-question, whether we have here any code of .laws, known and regarded as the common law of the United States. This case presents a question respecting the right of property, and.in such cases the state laws form the rules of decision in the courts of the United States; and the case now before the court must be governed by the law of copyright in the state of Pennsylvania. The complainants, though citizens of New York, are entitled to the benefit of those laws for the protection of their property; and have a right to prosecute their suit in the courts of the United States.
Iij by the common law of England, an author has the copyright in- his literary compositions, it becomes necessary to inquire whether that law is in force in the state of Pennsyl-,’ vania.
It was very properly admitted by the court below, on the trial of this cause, .that when the American colonies were first settled by our ancestors, it was held as well by the settlers, as by the judges and lawyers of England, that they brought with them, as a birthright and inheritance, so much- of the common law as was applicable to their local. situation and change of circumstances;-and that each colony judged for itself, what parts of-the common law were applicable to its new condition. Mr Justice Story recognises the same principle in his Commentaries, vol. 1, 137 to 140. Englishmen, says he, removing to another country, must be deemed- to -carry with them those rights and privileges which belong to them-in their nativé country; and that the plantations formed' in this country were to be deemed a part of the ancient domin*688ions, and the subjects inhabiting them to belong to a common country, and to retain their former rights and privileges. That the universal principle has been (and the practice has conformed to it), that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them, upon their immigration, all of it which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundation of the common law. The old congress, in the year 1774, unanimously resolved, that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England. 1 Story’s Com. 140, and note.
The colony of Pennsylvania was settled about the year 1682; at which periol, and down to the. time of the case-of Miller v. Taylor, 1769, the whole course of the British government, as well in parliament, as in the star chamber, and court of chancery, proceeded, in relation to the regulation of copyrights, upon the ground of an existing common law right in authors : and which was so universally acknowledged, that it was not contested in a court of justice until that case; and then solemnly, and upon the most mature deliberation, decided to be a common law right, notwithstanding the statute of Anne passed in the year 1710. And the subsequent decision of Donaldson v. Beckett, turned entirely upon the construction of that act, which it was supposed limited the remedy to the time prescribed in the act for the protection of the copyright. So-that at the time of the settlement of Pennsylvania, and for nearly a century thereafter, the common law right with all thecomn on law remedies attached to it, was the received and acknowledged doctrine in England. And if the common law was brought into Pennsylvania by the first settlers, the law of copyright formed a part of it, and was in.force there, and. has so continued ever since, not having been abolished or modified by any legislature in that state, But thé existence of the common law in Pennsylvania, is not left to inference upon the general principles applicable to emigrants, before alluded to; there is positive legislation on. the subject.
We find, as early as the year 1718, a law in that colony with á recital, “ wheréas king Charles II., by his royal charter to William Penn, for erecting this country into a province, did declare if to be his Will and pleasure, that the laws for re*689gulating and governing of property, within the said-province, as well for the descent and enjoyment of lands, as for the enjoyment and succession of goods and. chattels, and likewise as to felonies, should be and continue the same as they should be, for the time being, by the general course of the law in the kingdom of England, until the said laws shall be altered by the said William Penn, his heirs and assigns, and by the freemen of the said province, their delegates or deputies, or the greater part of them : and whereas it is a settled point, that as the common law,is the birthright of all English subjects, so it ought to be their rule in the British dominions. But acts of parliament have been adjudged not to extend to these plantations, unless they are particularly named as such: now, therefore,”_&c. : and certain statutes relating to crimes are adopted; and this question came under the consideration of the supreme court of that state, in the case of Morris’s Lessee v. Van Dorin, 1 Dall. 64, in the year 1782, and Chief Justice M’Kean, in pronouncing the judgment of the court, says: this state has had her government for above a hundred years, and it is the opinion of the court, that the common law of England has always been in force in Pennsylvania. That all statutes made in Great Britain before the settlement of Pennsylvania, have no force here, unless they are convenient, and adapted to the circumstances of the country; and that all statutes made since the settlement of Pennsylvania, have no force here, unless the colonies are particularly named; and he adds, that the spirit of the act of 1718 supports this opinion.
With respect to English statutes which have been considered in force in Pennsylvania, we have the most satisfactory evidence in the report of the judges of the supreme court of that state, made under an act of the legislature passed April 7th, 1807, 3 Binn. 395, by which the judges were required to examine, and report,, which of the English statutes are in force in that commonwealth ; and upon this subject the report states: “ with respect to English statutes, enacted since the settlement of Pennsylvania, it has been assumed, as a, principle, that they do not extend here, unless they have been recognized by our acts of assembly, or adopted by long continued practice in courts of justice. Of the latter description there are very few; and those, it supposed, were introduced from a sense of their *690evident- utility. As English statutes, they had no obligatory force; but, from long practice, they may be considered as incorporated with the law of our country.”
From this review of the law, I think I have shown, that, by the- common law of England, down, at least, to the decision in the case of Donaldson v. Beckett, an author was considered as having an exclusive right, in perpetuity, to his literary compositions. That this right, as a branch of the common law, was brought into Pennsylvania with the first settlers, as early as the year 1682. That whatever effect and operation the statute of Anne may have been deemed to have, had upon the common law in England, that statute never having been in force in Pennsylvania-, the common law right remains unaffected by it. And with this view of the law, and the rights of an author, I proceed to consider the acts of congress which have been passed on this subject.
Observing, in the first place, that we. aré bound to presume that congress understood the nature and character of this claim of authors to the enjoyment of the fruits pf their literary labours, and the ground upon which it rested. This is useful and necessary, to conduct us to a right understanding of their legislation. A knowledge of the mischief is necessary, to a just and correct view of the remedy intended to be applied.
But the knowledge of congress on this subject is not left open to presumption. The question, as to its being an exclusive and perpetual right, was brought directly to the view of congress.
Three acts have been passed on this subject; ahd being not only in pari materia, but connected with each other by their very titles and objects, are to be construed together, and explained by each other.
The last acton the subject was passed in the year 1831, and is entitled “ an act to amend the several acts respecting copyrights, approved February 3d, 1831.” And the report of the judiciary committee, to whom the subject was referred, shows in what point of light the subject was presented to congress.
Your committee, says the report, believé that the just claims of authors, require from our legislation a protection, not less than what is proposed in the. bill reported. From the first principles of proprietorship in properly, an author has an exclusive *691and perpetual right, in preference to any other, to the fruits of his labour. Though the nature of literary property is peculiar, it is not the less real and valuable. If labour and effort in producing what before was not possessed or known will give title, then the literary man has title, perfect and absolute, and should have his reward.
The object of thé law, and to which the attention of congress was specially ¡drawn, was the protection of property; claimed and admitted to be exclusive and perpetual in the author.
It may be useful, preliminarily, to notice a few of the settled rules by which statutes-are to be construed.
In construing statutes, three points are to be regarded; the old law, the mischief, and the remedy; and the construction should be such, if possible, to suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy. 1 Bl. Com. 87; Bac. Ab. Stat. 1, pl. 31, 32.
An affirmative statute does not abrogate the common law.
If a thing is at. common, law, a statute cannot restrain it, unless it be in negative words. Plowd. 113; 2 Kent’s Com. 462; 2 Mason 451; 1 Inst. 111, 115; 10 Mod. 118. Bac. Abr. Stat. 9.
Where a statute gives a remedy, where there was one by the common law, and does not imply a negative of the common law remedy, there will be two concurrent remedies. In such case, the statute remedy is accumulative. 2 Bac. 803, 805; 2 Inst. 200; Com. Dig. Action upon Statute 6.
Considering the common law right of the author established, and with these rules of construing statutes kept in view, 1 proceed to the consideration of the acts of congress.
The first law was passed in the year 1790 (1 vol. Story’s ed. of Laws of United States 94), and is entitled, “ an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of. such copies, during the times therein méntionéd.”
The first section, declares, that the author of-any book or books already printed, being a- citizen of the United States, and who hath not transferred the copyright to any other person, and any other person, being a citizen of the United States, &c. who hath purchased, or legally acquired the copyright of such book, in order to print, reprint, publish or vend the same, shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and *692vending the same, for fourteen years from the recording the title thereof in the clerk’s office, as hereinafter directed. The like-, provision is made, with respect to books or manuscripts not printed, or thereafter composed. The title, and this section of the act, obviously consider and treat this copyright as property ; something that is capable of being transferred ; and the right-of the assignee is protected equally with that of the author ; and the object of the act, and all its provisions.purport to be for securing the right. Protection is the avowed and real purpose for which it is passed. There is nothing here admitting the construction, that a new right is created. The provision in no way or manner deals with it as such. It in no manner limits or withdraws from the right, any. protection it before had. it is a forced and unreasonable interpretation, and in violation of all the well settled rules of construction, to. consider it as restricting, limiting or sibplishing any pre-existing right. Statutes are not presumed to make any alteration in the common law, further or otherwise, than the act expressly declares. And,, therefore, when the act is. general, the law presumes it did not intend to make any alteration ; for if such was the intention, the legislature would have so expressed it. 11 Mod. 148; 19 Vin. 512, Stat. E. 6, pl. 12. And hence the rule is laid down in Plowden, if a thing is at common law, a statute cannot restrain it, unless it be in negative words. , It is in every sense an affirmative statute, and does not abrogate the common law.
The cumulative security or protection given by the statute, attaches from the recording of the title of the book in the clerk’s office of the district court where the author or proprietor shall reside. If the statute should be considered as creating a new right, that right vests upon recording the title. This is the only prerequisite, or condition precedent, to the vesting the right. Whatever it is that is given by the statute, and the other requirements in the third and fourth sections, of publishing in the newspaper within two months from the date of the record, and delivering a copy of the book to the secretary of state within six months from the,publication; cannot be construed-as prerequisites or conditions precedent to the vesting. These provisions cannot be considered in any other light than as directory. In no other view can these sections of the law be *693made consistent with the provisions of the first section. The benefit of the act, so far as respects the exclusive right, takes effect from the time of recording the title in the clerk’s office: but the publication in the newspaper may be made at any time within two months, and the copy delivered to the secretary of state within six months. What would be the situation of the author if his copyright should be violated before the expiration of the time allowed him for these purposes ? Would he have no remedy? The second section declares in terms, that if any person, from and after the' recording the title, shall, without the consent of the author or proprietor, print or reprint, &c., he thereby incurs the penalties given by the act. Both the right and the remedy therefore given-by the act, attach on the recording of the title. And this construction is not at all affected by any thing contained in the third section of the act; which declares that no person shall be entitled to the benefit of this act, unless he shall have deposited a printed copy of the title in the clerk’s office. This is in perfect harmony with the. first and second sections; and although the requirement to publish a copy of the record in the newspaper is in the same section, it is in a separate and distinct clause, and no more required to be considered a prerequisite, than if it was in a distinct section: and so it was considered by Mr Justice. Washington in Ewer v. Coxe, 4 Wash. C. C. Rep. 490; and he also in that casé considered the requirement in the fourth section to deliver a copy to the secretary of state as directory, and not as a condition: and indeed the result of his opinion was, that if the authors copyright depended upon the act of 1790, it would be complete by a deposite, of a copy of the title in the clerk’s office. But that the act of 1802 not only added another requisite, viz. causing a copy of the record to be inserted at full length in the title page, but made the publication in the newspaper, and the delivery of a copy of the book to the secretary of state, prerequisites, although not made so by the act of 1790. Mr. Justice Washington is fully supported in his construction of the act of 1790 by the case of Nichols v. Ruggles, 3 Day 145, decided in the supreme court of errors of the-state of Connecticut, where it is held, that the provisions of the statute, which require the author to publish the title of his book in a newspaper, and lo deliver a copy of the work lo the *694secretary of state, are merely directory, and constitute no part, of the essential requisites for securing the copyright. This case was decided in the year 1808; and 1 do not find any reference to the act of 1802. This can only be accounted for upon the supposition ;hat, in the opinion of the counsel and court, this act did nor at all affect the construction of the act of 1790; for had it been supposed that the act of 1802 made the publication in a newspaper, and a delivery of a copy of the work to the secretary of state, prerequisites to the vesting of the copyright, it would necessarily have led to a different result on the motion for a new trial. Judge Hopkinson, who tried the cause now before the court, thinks the act of 1790 will not admit of the-, construction given to it by Judge Washington; but that under that act the publication in a newspaper, and delivery of a copy of the work to the secretary of state, are prerequisites to the establishment of the right; and.such. I understand to be the opinion of a majority of this court, by which the construction of the act of 1790 by Judge Washington is overruled. I have already attempted to show that this construction of the act of 1790 cannot be sustained,; nor do I think that the act of 1802 will aid that construction of the act of 1790, and in this I understand my brother M’Lean concurs: so that upon, this question, as to the effect of the act of 1802 upon the act of 1790, the court is equally divided, and the decision of the cause rests upon the act of 1790. A brief notice, however, of the act of 1802, 2 Story’s Ed. Laws U. S. 866, may not be amiss;
It purports so far as it relates to the present question, to be a supplement to the act of 1790, and declares that the author or proprietor of-a boob, before he shall be entitled to the benefit of that act, shall, in addition to the requisites enjoined in the; third and fourth section of said act, give information, by causing a. copy of the record, required to be published in a newspaper, to be inserted at full length in the title page or in the page immediately following the title page' of the book.. It is to be observed, that this-purports to be, a supplementary act, the office of which is only to add something,to the original act, but not to alter or change the provisions which it already contains. It leaves the original act precisely as it was, and only superadds to its provisions the matter of. the supplement; and *695both, when taken together, will receive the same construction as if originally incorporated in the same. act.. This is the natural and rational view of the matter. Suppose this new requisite had been in the original act, how would it stand 1 If it was in a separate and distinct section, it would run thus: that the author, before he shall be entitled to the benefit of this act, shall insert at full length, in the title page of the book, a copy of the record of the title. This could not change the construction of the act as to the publication in the newspaper, or delivery of a copy of the book to the secretary of state. Nor could it have any such effect, if it followed immediately after the prerequisite of depositing a printed copy of the title of the book in the clerk’s office; and this would have been the natural place for the provision, if it had been inserted in the original act.
Judge Washington, in Ewer v. Coxe, says that the supplemental act declares that the person seeking to obtain this right shall perform this new requisition, in addition to those prescribed in the third and fourth sections of the act of 1790, and that he must perform the 'whole before he shall be entitled to the benefit of the act- I find.no such .declaration in the act. The second section;, which relates to prints, does contain-this declaration, but it has no application- to books.
If the act.of 1802 is intended as a legislative construction of the act. of 1790, and is clearly erroneous, it- cannot be binding upon the court.
The act of 1831, being in pari materia, may be taken into consideration in construing the previous acts which it purports to amend;. and we find in this act. only two prerequisites imposed upon an author, to entitle him to. the benefit of the act, viz.- to deposit a printed copy of the title of the book -in the clerk’s office of the district court of the district wherein the author or proprietor shall reside; and to give information of the copyright being secured, by inserting on the title page, or the page immediately following,, the entry therein directed, viz. “ entered according, to the act of congress,” &c. And these being prerequisites under the former, laws, it is fairly to be concluded that-they were the only prerequisites, and that the other requirements are merely directory; and if so, the complainants in the court below, have shown all that the acts of *696congress require to vest the copyright. The title has been recorded in the clerk’s office, and a copy of the record inserted in the title page of the book.
But if the complainants in the court below have not made out a complete right under the acts of congress, there is no ground upon which the common law remedy can be taken from them. If there be a common law right, there certainly must be a common law remedy. The statute contains nothing in terms, having any reference to the common law right; and if such right is considered abrogated, limited or modified by the acts of congress, it must be by implication; and to so construe these acts, is in violation of the established rules of construction, that where a statute gives a remedy in the affirmative without a negative expressed or implied, for a matter which was actionable at common law, the party may sue at common law, as well as upon the statute. 1 Chitty’s Pl. 144. This is a well settled principle, and fully recognized and adopted in the case of Almy v. Harris, 5 Johns. Rep. 175.
Whatever effect the statute of Anne may have had in England, as to limiting or abridging the common law right there ; no such effect, upon any sound rules of interpretation; can grow, out of our acts of congress. There is a wide difference an the phraseology of the laws. The statute of Anne contains negative words. It declares that the author shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, &c. for the time contained in the statute, and no longer ; and these are the words upon which the advocates for the limitation- of the common law right mainly rest: and it was, for a long time, considered by the ablest judges in England, that even these strong words did not limit or abridge the common law right; and the question, at this day, is not considered free from doubt.
This act, and the construction which it had received in England, were well known and understood when the act of congress was passed, and no such limitation is inserted or intended, or any matter at all repugnant to the continuance of the common law right, ,in its full extent. These laws proceed on the ground that the common law remedy was insufficient to protect the right, and.provide additional security, by means of penalties, for the violation of it. Congress having before them the statute of Anne, and apprized of the doubt entertained in *697England as to its effect upon the common law right, if it had been intended to limit or abridge that right, some plain and explicit provision to that effect would doubtless have, been made ; and not having been made, is, to my mind, satisfactory evidence that no such effect was intended.
If the present action was to recover the penalties given by the'statute, it might be' incumbent'on the appellants to show that all the requirements in the acts of congress had been complied with. This would be resorting to the new statutory, remedy, and the party must bring himself, within the statute, in order 'to entitle him to that remedy. But admitting that the right depends upon the statute, and is limited to the time therein prescribed, the remedy by injunction continues during that time. This is admitted by Mr Justice Yeates, in Miller v. Taylor. The author, says he, has certainly a property in the copy of his book, during the term the statute has allowed; and whilst that term exists, it is like a lease, a grant. or any other common law right; and will equally entitle him to all common law remedies for the enjoyment, of that right. He may, I should think, file an injunction bill to stop the printing. But I may say with more positiveness, he might bring an action to recover satisfaction for the injury done, contrary to law, under the statute. And the same doctrine is laid down by the whole court, in Beckford v. Wood, 7 Term Rep. 616. Lord Kenyon says : the statute vests the right in authors for certain periods; and within those periods, the act says, the author shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, &c.; and the statute having vested the right in the author, the common law giv§s the remedy, by action on the case for a violation of it; and that the act, by creating the penalties, meant to give an accumulative remedy.
The language in the statute of Anne, which is considered as vesting the right, is the same as in the act of congress. In the former^ it is considered as necessarily implied in the declaration that the author shall have the sole right during such time¿ &c. And in the act of congress, there is the same declaration, that the author shall have the sole right of printing, &c. from the time of recording the title in the clerk’s, office. The right being thus vested at the time, draws after it the common law remedy. And there is ho more reason for *698contending, that the remedy given by the statute, supersedes the common law remedy under the act of congress,- than under the statute of Anne. The statute remedy is through the means of penalties in both cases.
The term for which the copyright is secured' in the case now before the court has not expired ; and according to the admitted and settled doctrine in England, under the statute of Anne, the common law remedy exists.during that period.
Upon the whole, in whatever light tins case is viewed, whether as a common law right or depending on the act of congress, I think the appellants are entitled to the remedy sought by the bill; and that the decree' of the court below ought to be reversed, the injunction made perpetual, and an account taken according to the prayer in the bill, without directing an issue to try any matter of fact, touching the right.
Mr Justice Baldwin also dissented from the opinion of the court.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and was argued by counsel;' on consideration whereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the judgment and decree of the said circuit court, in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court, with directions to that court, to order an issue of facts to be examined and tried by a jury, a,t the bar of said court, upon , this point, whether the said Wheaton, as author, or any other person as proprietor, had complied with the requisites prescribed by the third and fourth sections of the said act of congress, passed the 31st day of May 1790, in regard to the volumes of Whe.aton’s Reports, in the said bill. mentioned, or in regard to one or moré of.them, in the following particulars, viz. whether the said Wheaton or proprietor did, within two months from the date of the recording thereof in the clerk’s office of the district court, cause a copy of the. said record to be published in one or more of the newspapers printed in the resident states, for four weeks ; and whether the *699said Wheaton or the proprietor, , after the publishing thereof, did deliver or cause to be delivered to the secretary of state of the United States, a copy of the same, to be preserved in his office, according to the provisions of the said third and fourth sections of the said act, and that such further proceedings be had therein, as to law and justice may appertain, and in conformity to the opinion of this court.