238 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



sistent tliat the unthinking masses have 

 been sadly deluded. But our university- 

 alone has had the courage to lay its young 

 bat vigorous hand upon the mane of un- 

 tamed speculation and say : ' We will have 

 no more of this. Science we want, no crude, 

 undigested theories for the sons of our pa- 

 trons. Science we must have, science we 

 intend to have, but we want only science 

 clearly demonstrated, and we have great 

 cause to rejoice in this step, for it deals 

 a blow the force of which scientific athe- 

 ism will find it exceedingly difficult to 

 break.' " 



If any one doubts tliat tliere is a 

 crying need of the elementary school- 

 master in Tennessee, tlie literary quality 

 of tliis official utterance in behalf of a 

 great university will probably be suffi- 

 cient to settle the matter. But the 

 passage has a more serious aspect. In 

 the announcement for 1878-'T9, the 

 first purpose of Vanderbilt University 

 is stated to be the " protection of the 

 morals " of youth during the period of 

 their pupilage. "We respectfully suggest 

 that this protection is equally needed 

 for the clergymen of the Tennessee Con- 

 ference, who seem to have not even a 

 rudimentary conception of the immo- 

 rality of falsehood and slander. Dr. 

 Winchell, an eminent geologist and sci- 

 entific scholar, and also a man of known 

 religious character, who had freely pub- 

 lished his views and had been but re- 

 cently chosen as a member of the faculty 

 of the institution, was displaced from 

 his position because the authorities did 

 not agree with all his views ; and the 

 Methodist Conference of the State " re- 

 joices " and expresses its "intense grati- 

 fication " at this blow dealt at " scien- 

 tific atheism." Dr. Winchell is thus 

 branded with a false and libelous charge 

 by a body of religious teachers which 

 pretends to commend the university as 

 a protector of morals ! It is bad enough 

 for the institution to have to stand the 

 consequences of its bigotry and intoler- 

 ance in this age of growing liberaliza- 

 tion, but it might well have been spared 

 this official defense of the denomina- 

 tion to which it belongs. 



nUXLEY Oy TEE RIGHTS OF AUTUOBS. 



The unsettled state of copyright 

 legislation and the progress of commu- 

 nistic ideas in relation to literary prop- 

 erty give interest to all intelligent dis- 

 cussion of the nature and extent of 

 literary rights. We last month gave 

 the evidence of Prof. Tyndall before 

 the English copyright commission on 

 this subject, and we now follow it by 

 that of Prof. Huxley to the same pur- 

 pose. The commission had various 

 practical things before it, but it gave 

 thorough attention to the fundamental 

 question of the basis of property in 

 published works, and in this Ameri- 

 cans are quite as much interested as the 

 English. 



The testimony furnished to our read- 

 ers was elicited by a systematic attempt 

 so to undermine the rights of authors 

 to their books as substantially to break 

 them down. Several able men con- 

 nected with the copyright commission, 

 either as members of it or as witnesses 

 before it, took the ground that liter- 

 ary property is not like other property, 

 and differs from it in such a manner 

 that Government may interfere to reg- 

 ulate it in a way that amounts to the 

 subversion of it. They say that, as long 

 as an author keeps his book to him- 

 self, he owns it ; but when he publishes 

 it he parts with it, he surrenders it, and 

 the public then become its owner, and 

 Government may properly appoint an 

 agent to take charge of it and do with 

 it as the authorities please. Unwilling 

 to push the doctrine to the logical ex- 

 treme of barefaced, downright commu- 

 nism, by stripping the author clean of 

 his property, these parties maintained 

 that government should merely enter 

 into its possession and manage it for 

 him, allowing him such fraction of the 

 profits as it pleased. In lieu of the ex- 

 isting copyright, by which an author 

 makes such a bargain with the pub- 

 lisher as suits both parties, they pro- 

 posed what is called a "royalty" sys- 

 tem, by which anybody who pleases 



