458 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



A. Yes. 



Q. [Chairmcoi). Then on the grounds that you have explained, you 

 think the system would become before long wholly inoperative ? 



A. Not wholly inoperative, I think : inoperative for good, not in- 

 operative for evil. In the course of this early phase to be passed 

 through, in which houses issued rival editions against each other and 

 got into this state of warfare, it would happen that the weaker would 

 go to the wall : the smaller publishers would not be able to stand in 

 the figlit with the larger publishers, and they would tend to fail. And 

 further, although treaties of peace would be eventually reached between 

 the more powerful publishers, who would be afraid of each other, and 

 dare not issue rival editions of each other's books, there would be no 

 such feeling on the part of large publishers toward small publishers. 

 If a small publisher happened to issue a successful book, a larger pub- 

 lisher would have no fear in issuing a rival edition of that. Hence, 

 therefore, the tendency wovild be for the small publishers to be ruined 

 from having their successful books taken away from them. But that 

 would not be the only tendency : there would be a secondary tendency 

 working the same way. For, after this fighting had gone on a year or 

 two, it would become notorious among authors that if they published 

 their books with small publishers they would be in danger of rival edi- 

 tions, in case of success, being issued by large publishers ; but that, 

 contrariwise, if they published with large publishers they Avould be in 

 no danger of rival editions. Hence they would desert the small pub- 

 lishers ; and in a double way the small publishers would Icse their busi- 

 ness. We should progress toward a monopoly of a few large houses ; 

 and the power which such have already of dictating terms to authors 

 would become still greater. 



Q. And if I understand you rightly, the power would be not only to 

 dictate terms to authors, but of price to the public ? 



A. Yes, they would be able to combine. When you got a small 

 number of publishers, and they could agree to a system of terms, the 

 public would be powerless against them, and authors would be power- 

 less against them. 



Q. Then, in your opinion, is there au}'^ way by which works could 

 be cheapened by legislative enactment ? 



A. There is one way, and that a way in principle exactly the reverse 

 of that which is contended for in this measure ; namely, the extension 

 of copyright. I do not mean the extension in time ; I mean the exten- 

 sion in area. On this point I am happy to say there appears to be 

 agreement between the two sides. From the evidence which I have 

 read I gather that it is proposed along with this limitation of copyright 

 in time to extend copyright in area. I do not altogether understand 

 the theory which, while it ignores an author's equitable claim to the 

 product of his brain-work in respect of duration, insists upon the equity 

 of his claim to that product of his brain-work, as extending not only to 



