EDITOR'S TABLE. 



1M 



Appleton, of Now York, wrote to the 

 London Times that he did not think 

 the American people were opposed to 

 a copyright which had no other object 

 than to secure the recognition of the 

 rights of property of foreign authors in 

 American editions of their works. He 

 said that such a copyright had never 

 been asked for by England, but only an 

 arrangement to protect English printed 

 books, by which the foreign manufact- 

 urer could get protection on his stock 

 of paper, printing, and binding, in the 

 American market under cover of his 

 authors' copyright. The publisher's 

 share in the production of a book in 

 materials and labor, which have a cash 

 value in the market may be assumed 

 as at least ten times greater than the 

 share contributed by the author, and 

 which is represented by his customary 

 ten per' cent, royalty. Such interna- 

 tional copyright laws as have been de- 

 manded are, therefore, ten times more 

 for the protection of foreign book-man- 

 ufacturers than for foreign authors. 

 " Disentangle your author from the 

 publisher," said Mr. Appleton, " and 

 let him present his own claims, and my 

 opinion is the American people will 

 not deny them." The fairness of this 

 position was acknowledged by the 

 English press, but the English pub- 

 lishers were silent. The English au- 

 thors, on the other hand, or a large 

 proportion of the most influential of 

 them, conceded the justice of the case, 

 and drew up a memorial asking for ne- 

 gotiations on the new basis. 



This stirring up of the subject led to 

 some efforts on this side, to carry out 

 the fundamental idea which Mr. Ap- 

 pleton had presented, and which had 

 been previously urged in this country. 

 There was at first but very little objec- 

 tion to the plan, and there was a gen- 

 eral expression of favorable feeling 

 toward an adjustment on the basis pro- 

 posed. But opposition was quickly and 

 vigorously developed, because the par- 

 ties interested in the frustration of the 



measure were few and powerful, deeply 

 concerned, and able to concentrate a 

 prompt and efficient opposition. This 

 fact we think was not sufficiently cal- 

 culated upon, and the practical issue 

 was brought before Congress prema- 

 turely, in the shape of a bill embodying 

 a copyright in behalf of foreign authors. 

 More time should have been allowed, 

 and systematic measures adopted to 

 sift the question thoroughly before the 

 American people. We had a society 

 organized for the promotion of interna- 

 tional copyright, but it was committed 

 to the old plan, and threw the weight of 

 its influence against the new measure. 



In this unfavorable state of things, 

 when the opportunity had been adroit- 

 ly seized by the tacticians opposed to 

 copyright to confuse and befog the 

 public mind by proposing all sorts of 

 projects, a congressional committee was 

 appointed, who called a meeting on 

 February 12, 1872, for the hearing of 

 all parties interested. "We attended it, 

 and it was certainly a very funny affair. 

 We had not been accustomed to the 

 atmosphere of Washington, and were, 

 therefore, but poorly prepared for the 

 sarcastic intimations of parties who 

 lived there, as to the greenness of the 

 gentlemen who came to the national 

 Capitol expecting to interest Congress 

 on such a question as this in a presi- 

 dential year. The subject was dis- 

 cussed by various speakers, and in his 

 account of it Dr. Appleton says, " Prof. 

 Youmans followed, urging the claims 

 of British authors upon the singular 

 ground that they were very badly paid 

 in their own country, and desired 

 American sympathy." This is a total 

 mistake; we argued the question on no 

 such grounds, and offered no hint of 

 any such reason why international copy- 

 right should be secured. 



We demanded it of Congress solely 

 as a measure of justice, and there was 

 need enough that this view of the case 

 should be urged; for the discussion be- 

 fore the committee was in the last de- 



